v4[2]:
> - Add Reviewed-by, Tested-by,
> - Fix inconsistent indentation in documentation.
I confirm that the diff between v4 and v5 comprises whitespace only.
Thanks for your time to develop this useful functionality!
--
Best Regards
Eugeniu Rosca
esults in [*] (accidentally attached to v3):
Reviewed-by: Eugeniu Rosca
Tested-by: Eugeniu Rosca
[*]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20200120121439.ga24...@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com/
("Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater")
--
Best Regards,
Eugeniu Rosca
Hi Geert,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:46 AM Eugeniu Rosca wrote:
> > The only unexpected thing is seeing below messages (where gpiochip99 and
> > gpiochip22 are inexisting gpiochip names, mistakenly provided on c
uess Harish will be unhappy about that, as his expectation was that
upon merging gpio-aggregator with gpio-inverter, he will be able to
describe GPIO polarity and names in DTS without "hogging" the pins.
Perhaps this can be supplemented via an add-on patch later on?
For the whole series (leaving the above findings to your discretion):
Reviewed-by: Eugeniu Rosca
Tested-by: Eugeniu Rosca
Thanks!
--
Best Regards,
Eugeniu
Hi Geert,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:35:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:51 AM Eugeniu Rosca wrote:
> >
> > FWIW/FTR, doing some blind creation and deletion of gpio aggregator
> > chips [1] on R-Car H3ULCB overnight, kmemleak reported once [
Hi Geert,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> +static int gpio_aggregator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct gpio_desc **descs;
> + struct gpiochip_fwd *fwd;
> + int i, n;
FWIW/FTR, doing some
l
part of kernel-user contract [1-2], in which case it could
probably be moved to include/uapi/linux/gpio.h ?
Regardless:
Reviewed-by: Eugeniu Rosca
[1] linux (v5.4) git grep '"gpiochip' -- tools/
tools/gpio/lsgpio.c:if (check_prefix(ent->d_name,
"gpioch
Hi Geert,
Many thanks for the series upgrade.
A few static-analysis findings below (could be false positives).
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
[..]
> +static bool isrange(const char *s)
> +{
> + size_t n = strlen(s);
Cppcheck 1.40-18521-ge6d692d96058:
dr
