From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:58:01 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: OMAP: boards: changes to support dynamic
 irq alloc
In-Reply-To: <20120319191743.GB9859@atomide.com>
References: <1332158817-26311-1-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com>
 <20120319191743.GB9859@atomide.com>
Message-ID: <4F67B9F9.1030906@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Tony,

On 3/19/2012 8:17 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Tarun Kanti DebBarma<tarun.kanti@ti.com>  [120319 05:09]:
>> These two patches incorporate changes to OMAP1 and OMAP2 platforms
>> board files whereby older references to OMAP_GPIO_IRQ macro are
>> now replaced with gpio_to_irq(), thereby getting rid of static
>> irq references.
>>
>> Reference: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git omap/dt
>> Commit: 9a0cee711448335ec43eae83272495e9334c0098
>
> Can you please tell the exact two commits causing this
> breakage?

Well, this is the GPIO DT + SPARSE_IRQ series I have done. It appears 
that the boards I have were already using properly gpio_to_irq() and 
thus were working fine with this series.

But this is unfortunately not the case of most OMAP2 and 3 legacy boards 
that were still using an old OMAP way of converting GPIO to IRQ and were 
never modified to take advantage of the gpiolib stuff.

So if these patches are apply before the GPIO DT + SPARSE_IRQ series, 
there will be no breakage at all.

All the cleanup we have never done before will hurt us at some point 
when we will start using more extensively newer fmwk (DT, sparse_irq, 
dmaengine...). It was not done on purpose, but this GPIO series 
highlighted this remaining static broken mapping inside OMAP boards.

> I'm baffled how despite all the effort for previnting
> issues like this this still happen. These all seem valid
> fixes and clean up things, but how come this was not seen
> earlier?

Maybe because there are much more boards inside mach-omap2 directory 
than inside my cubicle... :-(

Regards,
Benoit