gpio: omap: use dynamic allocation of base

  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@kemnade.info>
---
maybe CC stable? not sure about good fixes tag.

 drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> 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@kemnade.info>
> ---
> maybe CC stable? not sure about good fixes tag.
>
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> index 80ddc43fd875..f5f3d4b22452 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_chip_init(struct gpio_bank *bank, struct irq_chip *irqc,
>                 if (!label)
>                         return -ENOMEM;
>                 bank->chip.label = label;
> -               bank->chip.base = gpio;
> +               bank->chip.base = -1;
>         }
>         bank->chip.ngpio = bank->width;
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>

This could potentially break some legacy user-space programs using
sysfs but whatever, let's apply it and see if anyone complains.

Bart
  

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> 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@kemnade.info>

Dangerous but beautiful change. Let's be brave.
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

> 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
  

Hi,

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 15:24:42 +0100
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:

> > 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.

I have the impression that numbering somehow changed here.
In earlier kernel, omap_gpmc started at >400 and gpio-twl4030 also
(both base = -1 now), so no conflicts with the static allocation of
the soc-gpios.  I have not investigated/bisected yet. But perhaps
additionally, a patch ensuring that dynamic allocation starts at
a higher number to not interfer with static numbering with be interesting.

That could then be more easily backportable.

Regards,
Andreas
  

* Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> [230116 08:38]:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> > index 80ddc43fd875..f5f3d4b22452 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> > @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_chip_init(struct gpio_bank *bank, struct irq_chip *irqc,
> >                 if (!label)
> >                         return -ENOMEM;
> >                 bank->chip.label = label;
> > -               bank->chip.base = gpio;
> > +               bank->chip.base = -1;
> >         }
> >         bank->chip.ngpio = bank->width;
> >
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >
> 
> This could potentially break some legacy user-space programs using
> sysfs but whatever, let's apply it and see if anyone complains.

Worth a try for sure, fingers crossed. I guess /sys/class/gpio will
break at least.

Regards,

Tony