RE: [v2,0/5] gpio: improve claim diagnostics and fix gpio-delay offset handling

AMD General

Hi Simon,

Yes, this is covered by a follow-up series I've already posted:

test: dm: add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=516335

It depends on patches 3 and 4 of this series (the test fails outright without them), so I sent it separately rather than folding it into v2.

Thanks,
Pranav Sanwal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2026 11:29 PM
> To: Sanwal, Pranav <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [v2,0/5] gpio: improve claim diagnostics and fix gpio-delay offset
> handling
>
> Hi Pranav,
>
> On 2026-07-29T08:12:14, Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Changes in v2:
>
> Could you also add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay ? You shoud add a gpio-
> delay node to the sandbox test devicetree wrapping at least two real lines, plus
> a test in test/dm/gpio.c that requests both consumers and toggles them? That
> would cover the offset-propagation fix in patch 4, the gpio_count/bounds fix
> in patch 3, and - via dm_leak_check - the remove-path fix in patch 5, all of
> which are otherwise not covered by tests and might break at any time.
>
> Regards,
> Simon