Hi Geert,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:14 PM Geert Uytterhoeven geert@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:57 PM Bartosz Golaszewski brgl@bgdev.pl wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:28 AM Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info wrote:
[TLDR: I'm adding this regression to regzbot, the Linux kernel regression tracking bot; most text you find below is compiled from a few templates paragraphs some of you might have seen already.]
On 17.12.21 16:35, Marcelo Roberto Jimenez wrote:
Some GPIO lines have stopped working after the patch commit 2ab73c6d8323f ("gpio: Support GPIO controllers without pin-ranges")
And this has supposedly been fixed in the following patches commit 89ad556b7f96a ("gpio: Avoid using pin ranges with !PINCTRL") commit 6dbbf84603961 ("gpiolib: Don't free if pin ranges are not defined")
There seems to be a backstory here. Are there any entries and bug trackers or earlier discussions everyone that looks into this should be aware of?
Agreed with Thorsten. I'd like to first try to determine what's wrong before reverting those, as they are correct in theory but maybe the implementation missed something.
Have you tried tracing the execution on your platform in order to see what the driver is doing?
Looking at commits that have related Fixes tags: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i... https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/com...
Interesting. These seem to imply that gpiolib-sysfs.c should be allocating a pinctrl list. That seems very easy to do in the DTD, although I don't really know if that is the right thing to do. Doing it in the code seems more appropriate, what do you think?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
Regards, Marcelo.