Driver was written to mimic existing stpmic1 regulator driver, which had the implicit assumption of a 1:1 relationship between of_match_data and regulator configuration with same indices.
Yet DCDC_REG5 was not at the same place it was in the rk_regulator_cfg due to likely a copy-paste mistake, leading to possibly the wrong regulators being controlled. Fix this. Reported-by: Michael Riesch <[email protected]> Suggested-by: Michael Riesch <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <[email protected]> --- drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c index 39eadbd3ebe5..57b024cef33c 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c @@ -829,6 +829,7 @@ static struct of_regulator_match rk809_reg_matches[] = { MATCH(809, DCDC_REG2, DCDC2), MATCH(809, DCDC_REG3, DCDC3), MATCH(809, DCDC_REG4, DCDC4), + MATCH(809, DCDC_REG5, DCDC5), MATCH(809, LDO_REG1, LDO1), MATCH(809, LDO_REG2, LDO2), MATCH(809, LDO_REG3, LDO3), @@ -838,7 +839,6 @@ static struct of_regulator_match rk809_reg_matches[] = { MATCH(809, LDO_REG7, LDO7), MATCH(809, LDO_REG8, LDO8), MATCH(809, LDO_REG9, LDO9), - MATCH(809, DCDC_REG5, DCDC5), MATCH(809, SWITCH_REG1, SW1), MATCH(809, SWITCH_REG2, SW2), }; -- 2.30.2
