22.04.2019 14:39, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > 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]> >
Axel, please also add a stable tag to the commit message to get the fix backported. Cc: stable <[email protected]>
