Quoting skakit@codeaurora.org (2021-08-15 23:50:37)

Hi Linus,

On 2021-08-13 14:27, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

Hi Satya/David,

nice work on identifying this bug!

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 6:56 AM satya priya [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

From: David Collins <redacted>

pmic_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq() and
gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_fourcell() translate a pinctrl-
spmi-gpio irqspec to an SPMI controller irqspec.  When they do
this, they use a fixed SPMI slave ID of 0 and a fixed GPIO
peripheral offset of 0xC0 (corresponding to SPMI address 0xC000).
This translation results in an incorrect irqspec for secondary
PMICs that don't have a slave ID of 0 as well as for PMIC chips
which have GPIO peripherals located at a base address other than
0xC000.

Correct this issue by passing the slave ID of the pinctrl-spmi-
gpio device's parent in the SPMI controller irqspec and by
calculating the peripheral ID base from the device tree 'reg'
property of the pinctrl-spmi-gpio device.

Signed-off-by: David Collins <redacted>
Signed-off-by: satya priya <redacted>

Can you please add an appropriate Fixes tag?

quoted

Is this a regression or is it fine if I just apply it for v5.15?
I was thinking v5.15 since it isn't yet used in device trees.

Without this fix, [2/2] Vol+ support is failing. If possible please
merge it on current branch.

Are there any boards supported upstream that have a gpio block that
isn't at 0xc000?