On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Static allocatin is deprecated and may cause probe mess, > if probe order is unusual. > > like this example > [ 2.553833] twl4030_gpio twl4030-gpio: gpio (irq 145) chaining IRQs 161..178 > [ 2.561401] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 160 > [ 2.564392] gpio gpiochip5: (twl4030): added GPIO chardev (254:5) > [ 2.564544] gpio gpiochip5: registered GPIOs 160 to 177 on twl4030 > [...] > [ 2.692169] omap-gpmc 6e000000.gpmc: GPMC revision 5.0 > [ 2.697357] gpmc_mem_init: disabling cs 0 mapped at 0x0-0x1000000 > [ 2.703643] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 178 > [ 2.704376] gpio gpiochip6: (omap-gpmc): added GPIO chardev (254:6) > [ 2.704589] gpio gpiochip6: registered GPIOs 178 to 181 on omap-gpmc > [...] > [ 2.840393] gpio gpiochip7: Static allocation of GPIO base is deprecated, use dynamic allocation. > [ 2.849365] gpio gpiochip7: (gpio-160-191): GPIO integer space overlap, cannot add chip > [ 2.857513] gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 160..191 (gpio-160-191) failed to register, -16 > [ 2.866149] omap_gpio 48310000.gpio: error -EBUSY: Could not register gpio chip > > So probing was done in an unusual order, causing mess > and chips not getting their gpio in the end. > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Dangerous but beautiful change. Let's be brave. Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > maybe CC stable? not sure about good fixes tag. I wouldn't do that from the outset. If there are no problems for a few kernel releases we can think about doing that. Yours, Linus Walleij
