Re: [PATCH] pwm: adp5585: correct mismatched pwm chip info

[Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>]

On 11/14/2025, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-11-14 at 10:30 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 02:53:08PM +0800, ziniu.wang_1@nxp.com wrote:
>>> From: Luke Wang <ziniu.wang_1@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> The register addresses of ADP5585 and ADP5589 are reversed.
>>
>> My German feeling for the English language suggests:
>> s/reversed/swapped/.
>>
>>> Fixes: 75024f97e82e ("pwm: adp5585: add support for adp5589")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luke Wang <ziniu.wang_1@nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
>>> index dc2860979e24..806f8d79b0d7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
>>> @@ -190,13 +190,13 @@ static int adp5585_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5589_pwm_chip_info = {
>>> +static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5585_pwm_chip_info = {
>>>  	.pwm_cfg = ADP5585_PWM_CFG,
>>>  	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
>>>  	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5585_PWM_ONT_LOW,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> -static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5585_pwm_chip_info = {
>>> +static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5589_pwm_chip_info = {
>>>  	.pwm_cfg = ADP5589_PWM_CFG,
>>>  	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5589_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
>>>  	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5589_PWM_ONT_LOW,
>>
>> I wonder how that didn't pop up during development of 75024f97e82e. I
>> would expect that the driver doesn't work correctly in a very obvious
>> way without this change?! I tend to want to send this to Linus before
>> 6.18, but the question makes me wonder if I'm correct with that
>> urgency. Any insights?
> 
> Yeah, this one I kind of asked for Liu to test it (as I was not testing the PWM bits)
> and he did tested it [2]. But it was v2 and that series had some more iterations. So
> I suspect that I messed up along the way and the last version of the series was not
> tested (for the PWM bits).

'b4 diff' tells us that you introduced the bug in v3 and I did test v2
although I didn't provide my Tested-by tag.

b4 diff 20250521-dev-adp5589-fw-v4-20-f2c988d7a7a0@analog.com -v 2 3 | grep -C3 pwm_chip_info
Using cached copy of the lookup
---
Analyzing 203 messages in the thread
---
Diffing v2 and v3
    Running: git range-diff a99fa5bf804f..d382f21d8d7d e1940c40e7b0..4dbd46335b23
---
    + 	return 0;
    + }
      
    ++static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5589_pwm_chip_info = {
    ++	.pwm_cfg = ADP5585_PWM_CFG,
    ++	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
    ++	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5585_PWM_ONT_LOW,
    ++};
    ++
    ++static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5585_pwm_chip_info = {
    ++	.pwm_cfg = ADP5589_PWM_CFG,
    ++	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5589_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
    ++	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5589_PWM_ONT_LOW,
--
    - 	{ "adp5585-pwm" },
    -+	{ "adp5589-pwm" },
    +-	{ "adp5585-pwm" },
    ++	{ "adp5585-pwm", (kernel_ulong_t)&adp5585_pwm_chip_info },
    ++	{ "adp5589-pwm", (kernel_ulong_t)&adp5589_pwm_chip_info },
      	{ /* Sentinel */ }
      };
      MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, adp5585_pwm_id_table);

> 
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/3efb68e2-7091-47e1-81a2-39930da5a427@nxp.com/
> - Nuno Sá
>  
>>
>> Best regards
>> Uwe
> 

-- 
Regards,
Liu Ying