On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 22:36:37 +0300 Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:20:40PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > If you cannot point out a working past commit, there was no regression. If > you fix something that hasn't worked before or has been long time broken, > it must not cause breakage to other current users. > Well, I did not take the time for a bisect. As we need a less aggressive fix, it seems to be worth doing it. > > > 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? > > It seems so. > or maybe an if (not_using_devicetree()) Regards, Andreas
