On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:38:57 +0300 Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > It seems GPIOs on OMAP1 boards are somewhat broken after: > > > > > > commit 92bf78b33b0b463b00c6b0203b49aea845daecc8 > > > Author: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > 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
