If the rationales discussed in Mapp v. Ohio were retained would we have the good faith exception?

There are two major rationales discussed in this case. 
Either of them, taken as an absolute rule, would prevent the existence of the good faith
exception.  However, there are exceptions to most legal rules and those exceptions tend
to be sensible.  This is the case with the good faith
exception.

The first rationale in Mapp
is that searching someone's home is like compelling them to testify against themselves. 
This means it violates the 5th Amendment.  If this rationale were taken as an absolute
rule, even a search with a warrant would be illegal.  Therefore, this rationale cannot
possibly be categorical and the good faith exception does not violate
it.

The second rationale in Mapp is
that admitting evidence from illegal searches would make the 4th Amendment meaningless. 
The 4th Amendment is really meant as a check on lawless and indiscriminate police
action.  When police obtain a warrant, they are not acting in a lawless or
indiscriminate way.  They are doing what they are supposed to.  If the warrant turns out
to have been illegal, it is not their fault.  Prohibiting the use of evidence they have
found using this would not deter indiscriminate police action because the police have
already been acting in a legal way (as far as they could know) by getting the
warrant.

Therefore, the rationales used in
Mapp should not be seen as contrary to the idea of the good faith
exception.