22.04.2019 8:35, Axel Lin пишет: > Current code always set pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id]; > It should set to either max77620_regs_info or max20024_regs_info > depends on the chip_id. > > Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <[email protected]> > --- > This was sent on https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/23/482 > > drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > index 1607ac673e44..0ad91a7f9cb9 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ static int max77620_regulator_probe(struct > platform_device *pdev) > continue; > > rdesc = &rinfo[id].desc; > - pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id]; > + pmic->rinfo[id] = &rinfo[id]; > pmic->enable_power_mode[id] = MAX77620_POWER_MODE_NORMAL; > pmic->reg_pdata[id].active_fps_src = -1; > pmic->reg_pdata[id].active_fps_pd_slot = -1; >
That is a quite difficult bug to spot because the regulator parameters are mostly identical and the part that differs is usually unused in practice, good catch! Thank you very much! Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]> Tested-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
