Re: [PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1753 bytes --]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:13:47 +0100
Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:

> On 2019-11-14 12:54, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:26:33PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> >> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:  
> >   
> >> > This definitely looks like a bug but without a datasheet or testing it's
> >> > worrying guessing at the register bit to use for the enable for the
> >> > second LDO...  
> >   
> >> I am hoping for a Tested-By: from the one who has submitted the patch
> >> for the regulator.  
> > 
> > Or a reviewed-by from someone with access to the datasheet.
> >   
> 
> I guess Pierre-Hugues should have access, as he introduced the part?
> 
> >> Well, it is not just guessing, it is there in the url I referenced. But
> >> I would of course prefer a better source. At first I wanted to spread
> >> my findings.  
> > 
> > The URL you provided looked to be for a different part though?
> >   
> >> I am not pushing anyone to accept it without Tested-By/Reviewed-Bys.
> >> What is a good way to avoid people bumping into this bug?
> >> Maybe I can find the right C on the board to check.  
> > 
> > That'd be good.  Or we could fix it by just removing enable/disable
> > control for the second LDO entirely and if someone needs that control
> > they can always re-add it.  
> 
> We use the RN5T567 and I added support for it. Unfortunately I have no
> access to the RN5T618 datasheet so I cannot tell. The RN5T567 has both
> bits in marked reserved, but looking at how it the enable bit are
> distributed otherwise this patch fixes it in the only way it makes
> sense...
> 
Well, the rn5t618 does not have these regulators, either. It is only the
rc5t619.

Regards,
Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]