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 21:58:48 +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: <20230425215848.247a936a@aktux>
In-Reply-To: <20230425193637.GH444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
References: <20230425173241.GF444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
        <20230425201117.457f224c@aktux>
        <20230425183857.GG444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
        <20230425212040.5a4d5b09@aktux>
        <20230425193637.GH444508@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 22:36:37 +0300
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:20:40PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi> 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