Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 20:11:17 +0200
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
To:     Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>
Cc:     linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BISECTED REGRESSION] OMAP1 GPIO breakage
Message-ID: <20230425201117.457f224c@aktux>
In-Reply-To: <20230425173241.GF444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
References: <20230425173241.GF444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 20:32:41 +0300
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> It seems GPIOs on OMAP1 boards are somewhat broken after:
> 
> commit 92bf78b33b0b463b00c6b0203b49aea845daecc8
> Author: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
> 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.
twl4030 gpio registration conflicts with omap gpio registration.
Probably in former times, the dynamic allocation always started at 512, 
so no conflicts between static and dynamic.

So I see two options: either fix the remaining static allocation
or fix allocation so there are no overlaps between static and dynamic.

Regards,
Andreas