AMD General Hi Simon
Thanks for the review, and for the ask on test coverage. > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 2:27 AM > To: Sanwal, Pranav <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [0/3] gpio: improve claim diagnostics and fix gpio-delay offset > handling > > Hi Pranav, > > On 2026-07-09T14:28:59, Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This series improves diagnosability of GPIO offset collisions in the > > uclass layer and fixes two related bugs in the gpio-delay driver that > > were uncovered while debugging such a collision. > > Thanks for tracking this down. > > One thing is missing, though: tests. The gpio-delay driver has no sandbox > coverage at all, which is presumably why these bugs went unnoticed. Please can > you add a gpio-delay node to the sandbox test devicetree, wrapping at least > two > GPIO lines, along with a test in test/dm/gpio.c that requests both consumers? > That would have caught the offset-propagation bug in patch 3 directly and > would > also exercise the bounds check and array sizing from patch 2. While putting together the gpio-delay node/test you asked for, I found that test/dm/gpio.c hasn't actually been compiled in years: its Makefile rule was folded into an unrelated CONFIG_ACPIGEN-gated block, losing the "$" from "obj-$(CONFIG_DM_GPIO)" in the process. Making it build again surfaces a few years of bit-rot in the existing tests, plus a separate pre-existing core-DM issue unrelated to GPIO. That's more scope than belongs in this series, so I'm sending v2 of the actual fixes now (patch 1 reworked per your comment), and will follow up separately with the test/dm build fix and the gpio-delay sandbox coverage you asked for. > Regards, > Simon Thanks, Pranav Sanwal
