From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753259AbaBCQrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:47:15 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:42630 "EHLO mail-we0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751912AbaBCQrO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:47:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:47:06 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: "Opensource [Anthony Olech]" Cc: Mark Brown , Samuel Ortiz , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Dajun Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] fix da9052 volatile register definition ommissions Message-ID: <20140203164706.GW13529@lee--X1> References: <201401281723.s0SHNmLa041140@swsrvapps-02.lan> <20140203102919.GP13529@lee--X1> <24DF37198A1E704D9811D8F72B87EB51AD22E658@NB-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <24DF37198A1E704D9811D8F72B87EB51AD22E658@NB-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > Three of the PMIC registers have some bits that are changed > > > autonomously by the PMIC itself (some time) after being set by some > > > component driver of the DA9052 PMIC and hence they need to be marked > > > as volatile so that the regmap API will not cache their values. > > > Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech > > > Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen > > These are not correct. > > Who authored the patch? > > I found the problem when running regression tests for another different problem. > And according to my testing on a SMDK6410+DA9053EVB the patch is correct!! I mean the Signed-off-by's are not correct. They should be in order of the patch submission path. Who authored the patch initially and what part did David play? > > > REGULATORS - the first change to any DA9052 BUCK voltage will be > > > actioned, but sebsequent ones will not. > > Which patch caused the bug? > > I will find out when I start rebasing backwards to submit patches to linux-stable! I'm just wondering where to apply the patch. Either for -fixes or -next. If the bug has been present for some time, I'll probably just apply it to my for-next branch. Also be wary of the $SUBJECT line format when submitting to different subsystems. You can usually get an idea of what's expected by doing: `git log --oneline -- drivers/` -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog