From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:17:02 +0100 From: Johan Hovold To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Johan Hovold , Evgeniy Polyakov , Nicolas Ferre , Imre Kaloz , Krzysztof Halasa , Eric Miao , Haojian Zhuang , Daniel Mack , Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: w1-gpio: fix erroneous gpio requests Message-ID: <20130312211702.GG8797@localhost> References: <1363116094-8630-1-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com> <20130312202028.GA6060@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 04:24:20AM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:21:34PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > >> Fix regression introduced by commit d2323cf773 ("onewire: w1-gpio: add > >> ext_pullup_enable pin in platform data") which added a gpio entry to the > >> platform data, but did not add the required initialisers to the board > >> files using it. Consequently, the driver would request gpio 0 at probe, > >> which could break other uses of the corresponding pin. > >> > >> On AT91 requesting gpio 0 changes the pin muxing for PIOA0, which, for > >> instance, breaks SPI0 on at91sam9g20. > > not only on AT91, 0 is a valid gpio AT91 (and 9g20) was just an example of what the implications could be like. I discovered the change after having debugged broken MMC on a custom at91sam9g45 board. Johan