[BISECTED] 3.10-rc1 OMAP1 GPIO IRQ regression

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> * Javier Martinez Canillas <martinez.javier at gmail.com> [130623 18:08]:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen at iki.fi> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 01:06:37AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen at iki.fi> wrote:
>> >> > What is the status of this patch? We're already at 3.10-rc7 and GPIO
>> >> > IRQs are still broken on OMAP1.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> There is a problem with this patch.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> So I think that the correct solution is to add SPARSE_IRQ support to
>> >> omap1 and not reverting Jon's patch. Of course this may not be
>> >> possible since we are so close to 3.10 and most OMAP patches already
>> >> merged for 3.11 but we should definitely try to have this at least for
>> >> 3.12. Otherwise we won't be able to move to DT-only booting for
>> >> OMAP2+.
>> >
>> > OMAP1 does not use DT. So we could put this code under #ifdef
>> > CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1 or similar. It's just a few lines of code. OMAP2+
>> > work should not regress OMAP1.
>> >
>> > Demanding SPARSE_IRQ support for OMAP1 should have been discussed before
>> > these changes were made. It's not reasonable to assume such things can
>> > be made during rc-cycle. Also, now, I don't think it's reasonable to
>> > wait for that to be done, as it would take until 3.12 or even later to
>> > get OMAP1 functional again.
>> >
>> > A.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, since we are so late in the -rc cycle and OMAP1 is currently
>> broken I agree that the only sensible solution is to revert the patch
>> for now.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I just wanted to point out the issue that keeping the OMAP GPIO driver
>> using legacy mapping domain represents a blocker to have GPIO-IRQ
>> working with Device Tree for OMAP2+
>
> Yes. We can do the ifdef Aaro suggested, and let's also plan on
> converting omap1 to use SPARSE_IRQ. But with the ifdef we can cut
> away the dependency between these two.

Alright. Sorry I dropped the ball on this one. I've lost track of
which patch needs to get applied, but given that it is so late in the
cycle, it would be better for someone else to apply the change, test
and send a pull request to Linus. I'm okay with it going through the
OMAP tree if that is the most expedient. Alternately, send me the pull
request and I'll pass it on to Linus.

g.