Axel Lin <axel....@ingics.com> 於 2019年2月24日 週日 上午9:27寫道： > > Current code always set pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id]; > It should set to either max77620_regs_info or max20024_regs_info > depends on the chip_id. > > Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel....@ingics.com> > --- > drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > index 1607ac673e44..0ad91a7f9cb9 100644 > --- a/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > +++ b/drivers/regulator/max77620-regulator.c > @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ static int max77620_regulator_probe(struct > platform_device *pdev) > continue; > > rdesc = &rinfo[id].desc; > - pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id]; > + pmic->rinfo[id] = &rinfo[id];
I'm wondering if anyone can help review this patch. This looks like a bug fix to me because for max20024 MAX77620_REGULATOR_ID_SD4, the pmic->rinfo[id] = &max77620_regs_info[id]; set pmic->rinfo[id] to a zero-filled entry. e.g. In max77620_regulator_set_power_mode, rinfo->cfg_addr is wrong for MAX77620_REGULATOR_ID_SD4. Thanks, Axel
