Re: [BISECTED REGRESSION] OMAP1 GPIO breakage

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:38:57 +0300
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 08:11:17PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 20:32:41 +0300
> > Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote:  
> > > It seems GPIOs on OMAP1 boards are somewhat broken after:
> > > 
> > > commit 92bf78b33b0b463b00c6b0203b49aea845daecc8
> > > Author: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
> > > Date:   Fri Jan 13 21:59:22 2023 +0100
> > > 
> > >     gpio: omap: use dynamic allocation of base
> > > 
> > > E.g. on OSK1 the ethernet IRQ cannot (omap_gpio.0) no longer be requested:
> > > 
> > > [    0.277252] Error requesting gpio 0 for smc91x irq
> > > 
> > > Also the tps65010 (still using static allocation) will now conflict:
> > > 
> > > [    0.400726] gpio gpiochip5: Static allocation of GPIO base is deprecated, use dynamic allocation.
> > > [    0.400848] gpio gpiochip5: (tps65010): GPIO integer space overlap, cannot add chip
> > > [    0.400970] gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 208..214 (tps65010) failed to register, -16
> > > [    0.401092] tps65010 i2c-tps65010: can't add gpiochip, err -16
> > > 
> > > I think this change should be reverted until the board files and other
> > > gpiochips are fixed accordingly.
> > >   
> > well, then just fix that tps65010 thing. 
> > 
> > that change is itself a regression fix for exactly the same kind of error.  
> 
> Which commit introduced that regression? Also, the changelog mentions
> it happens only with "unusual" probe order. Now, all the ordinary cases
> for OMAP1 are broken.
> 
did not bisect that to an exact commit.
Unusual probe order: on the device where I tested it,
I did not see a completely successful probe.

> And it's not just that tps65010 thing. E.g. 770 fails to boot as well
> and it doesn't use it; and reverting 92bf78b33b0b fixes that one as
> well. AFAIK it's because all the gpio_request()s in OMAP1 board files
> stopped now working.
> 
so we break every non-devicetree user of omap-gpio? 

Regards,
Andreas