gpio: mmio: fix calculation of bgpio_bits
PATCH v2 1/1 gpio: mmio: fix calculation of bgpio_bits
If the "ngpios" property is specified, bgpio_bits is calculated as the round up value of ngpio. At the moment, the only requirement specified is that the round up value must be a multiple of 8 but it should also be a power of 2 because we provide accessors based on the bank size in bgpio_setup_accessors().
--- drivers/gpio/gpio-mmio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/gpio/gpio-mmio.c +1 -1
@@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ int bgpio_init(struct gpio_chip *gc, struct device *dev,if (ret) gc->ngpio = gc->bgpio_bits;else - gc->bgpio_bits =round_up (gc->ngpio,8 ); + gc->bgpio_bits =roundup_pow_of_two (round_up (gc->ngpio,8 )); ret =bgpio_setup_io (gc, dat, set, clr, flags);if (ret)
Signature · 1 line
2.30.1
Quoted 6 lines · Asmaa Mnebhi
If the "ngpios" property is specified,
bgpio_bitsis calculated as the round up value of ngpio. At the moment, the only requirement specified is that the round up value must be a multiple of 8 but it should also be a power of 2 because we provide accessors based on the bank size inbgpio_setup_accessors().
Is this a fixup for the other patch? If so, then why did you split them again?
Signature · 2 lines
With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
If the "ngpios" property is specified,
bgpio_bitsis calculated as the round up value of ngpio. At the moment, the only requirement specified is that the round up value must be a multiple of 8 but it should also be a power of 2 because we provide accessors based on the bank size inbgpio_setup_accessors().Is this a fixup for the other patch? If so, then why did you split them again?
Apologies, I might have misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you asked me to split it again so that it is a rebased continuation of the approved old patches. To avoid any further misunderstandings on my part , could you please confirm the following:
1) I will create one patch combining both
2) The tag for this one patch will be "[PATCH v2] gpio: mmio: handle "ngpios" properly in bgpio_init()"
And Reviewed-By Andy and Linus.
3) I will add in the commit message , a changelog section as shown below:
---V1->v2:
- rebase + combination of the 2 patches.
Quoted 10 lines · Asmaa Mnebhi
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
If the "ngpios" property is specified,
bgpio_bitsis calculated as the round up value of ngpio. At the moment, the only requirement specified is that the round up value must be a multiple of 8 but it should also be a power of 2 because we provide accessors based on the bank size inbgpio_setup_accessors().Is this a fixup for the other patch? If so, then why did you split them again?
Apologies, I might have misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you asked me to split it again so that it is a rebased continuation of the approved old patches.
No, I asked to move the changelog section to be not a part of the commit message and asked what happened to the tags, because you dropped them.
Quoted 2 lines
To avoid any further misunderstandings on my part , could you please confirm the following:
1) I will create one patch combining both
_If_ I understood the patch flow correctly, and it means that one is the fix to the other one, then yes, otherwise no, keep them split with appropriate Fixes tag added.
Quoted 2 lines
2) The tag for this one patch will be "[PATCH v2] gpio: mmio: handle "ngpios" properly in
bgpio_init()" And Reviewed-By Andy and Linus.
What do you mean by "tag" in this context? Do you mean "Subject" or title? Otherwise it's very confusing.
For the Rb tag by me, yes, please keep it. As for Linus' one I think you should drop it and add a changelog entry to explain why, because that tag is only for the "fix" part. Do not forget to Cc Linus.
Quoted 2 lines
3) I will add in the commit message , a changelog section as shown below:
Signed-off-by Asmaa Mnebhi <[email protected]>
It's mandatory according to the Submitting Patches documentation. Read it for clarification on how to use and when the tags.
Quoted 3 lines
---
V1->v2:
- rebase + combination of the 2 patches.
I believe this needs more entries. Since it's not part of the commit message, you may use free wording to explain what exactly had happened to the patches, with links, references, etc.
Signature · 2 lines
With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko