From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743B3CA62 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718012901; cv=none; b=WBUbPHblfOoAAN/BPS4ZPIUKKoe6TKS0DCsQVA8twfGnURgRbDHBFUJD+tO/Pri9gzKWapzjQOm18jPYY+vTxyyVJ/H9L5RZFKG+jxSNfBatloiOXoPHNlI/2arZRw7keErTMFCdWTlYlbkl8VEbw701D/cKtpqa/yKYzYuySbE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718012901; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yz5UXgktrm1OmtnGfF4heciSBKjtRB9npZl4EeMkMOY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=F1680MTmtkZug23QbR97Xb2J5GoLkSkvlAWYzjsXrMnMjD1vk+4jAtjER7+WThA4ZxV+qG55LcUCB0Sg5+XSIKxUtkVxSQSigtlOQAsZwboGoXvWL/+I3E/Auc1XPD9SqmEhRPhKae6f9AGaRfpLLKkueQp3ScwoC1gvivdU+k4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=Kgyhg8UP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="Kgyhg8UP" Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFC691BF20A; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:48:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1718012892; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3o0fJjNj4JP0TVjAXgD7eXygR+eJ+q4ORuB5LSyFd+Y=; b=Kgyhg8UPaC0J69nmpfaonXblGn3t/yyfKce2ZAhN892k7F4HjIfAUEuXVH4RnuURdVFgp/ j599GCn1AgGPHBvrPd5zRqy8+OSoZA/r7mc93ZDVklbVA4CyHZDkxG/7QF5w1V705JNvJj P0+44nKGzfpjTHK3XlbM41Hlq9NwFMpWG1PYheS6M/Dgk0ASxJU5vVUp8DtoH2Txzu4B97 mxzeJC1gyg7JHpR7tYz0rljJDEdqvs4BFF2OZ4LKzZ838DA2iffVSiy0LJBsv/w2SYC2qu 9JX9UWG085A2bA/YRdmIoWlhUt1d82Q+fi5hx21uYvClgiuUk6hZVLFAp/1v6w== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:48:11 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Fix the number of irqs for TPS65224 and TPS6594 To: Nishanth Menon Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, m.nirmaladevi@ltts.com, bhargav.r@ltts.com, lee@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregory.clement@bootlin.com, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com, u-kumar1@ti.com References: <20240603170100.2394402-1-thomas.richard@bootlin.com> <20240604121055.lztvn2wu62qqrla6@maximize> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Richard In-Reply-To: <20240604121055.lztvn2wu62qqrla6@maximize> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-GND-Sasl: thomas.richard@bootlin.com On 6/4/24 14:10, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 19:01-20240603, Thomas Richard wrote: >> The number of irqs is computed to allocate the right amount of memory for >> the irq data. An array of struct tps6594_regulator_irq_data is allocated >> one time for all the irqs. Each irq uses one cell of the array. >> >> If the computed number of irqs is not correct, not allocated memory could >> be used. >> >> Fix the values used in the calculation for TPS6594 and TPS65224. >> >> Fixes: 00c826525fba (regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC regulators) >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richard >> --- > > > Thanks a ton for fixing this - this solved a bunch of random regressions > we were tracking: > am62axx_sk, am69_sk, j721e-idk, j721s2-evm in addition to J7200 evm as > well. > > Tested-by: Nishanth Menon > > > This was definitely a 6.10 regression, could we fast track it in? Hi Nishanth, FYI, I also found an other 6.10 regression for j721s2-evm and j7200-evm: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240603082110.2104977-1-thomas.richard@bootlin.com/ Regards, Thomas