From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:32:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20160606153216.GA9517@ulmo.ba.sec> References: <1463075104-26924-1-git-send-email-rklein@nvidia.com> <5734C2C2.2060207@nvidia.com> <9716c1c8-dd2b-8444-6ec9-567d07fe8971@nvidia.com> <20160531073022.GA1729@dell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160531073022.GA1729@dell> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Rhyland Klein , Laxman Dewangan , linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:30:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote: >=20 > > On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > >=20 > > > On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote: > > >> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for > > >> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in > > >> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namel= y, > > >> in the case of chip->chip_id =3D=3D MAX77620, it will set > > >> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case > > >> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will > > >> cause probe to fail. > > >> > > >=20 > > > Thanks for fixes. > > > Missed when converting if-else to switch. > > >=20 > > > Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan > > >=20 > >=20 > > Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms > > using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is > > there anything blocking it? >=20 > Yes, it was sent too late in the cycle. Can we still have this for v4.7? It's clearly -rc material. Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding Tested-by: Thierry Reding --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJXVZd8AAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhq1wQALXzFW0Gkef0gxgLRhmlVhaI oXRy8Y3m+KnWjvczErRYUR+OhR0Q7ieAHmInp5g7aCsH4BlwhzEeHcTtjdd2sNY1 xKSDDYKHhjjdiWg5NBphT5F24WUECRl/UeOZVb7OV58YwGti6pzGKp1+nMw7Djii cE0SAy6+trV44E+wUp09rISCkOk6/A5EUYbFV4VPyPfhzqpqIFKad3AAe7OW/AsF MTFH/Wjl1tuWutLv/UUJgQnBY7bi5upptDJkV/DeT38LHKkWmsBCHLkTEl5pmJYq xxuj6K6dBOanHc0FgbGga7XSRbbQxxljYBVgKJsnNRrYpKx5kqIh9/a9/6djd9zZ jgqJJoJdwoEWBhLS1ftV/ibwyFsYTqm/lHid5oCKP75Ijn6KY4oRu62yoCcF261C xVKxRMehRe137gA12sKO/ozIaTaxYUt1Ux+m+sSsEUG4iojQrWutP6DCTQ24v0ch KtsX5xCHF4gM8ZliUInItEJmwJSLkJYke7Le9euQfihZRYs8ar9l/526cfw6WG6p R6taNnmTxyeNo+lUDuqdJGcUc9Lq+ivjUACpz6o6/q7CbUro3SRmN6SOxM7P7b2W PO6/6dyIHVxhpXjkayYU5+uDtZE8iU1dyxuy+GSsThClOgGCPVcIJOiaD8kSjTu5 C6O+Y3eRZmvZcRHZ4RMv =TR0H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--