Should i send patch without the shift (because rest of series gets not merged in 5.4)?
Am 4. Oktober 2019 17:20:01 MESZ schrieb Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>: >On Thu, 03 Oct 2019, Frank Wunderlich wrote: > >> Part 3 from this series [1] was not merged due to wrong splitting >> and breaks mt6323 pmic on bananapi-r2 >> >> dmesg prints this line and at least switch is not initialized on >bananapi-r2 >> >> mt6397 1000d000.pwrap:mt6323: unsupported chip: 0x0 >> >> this patch contains only the probe-changes and chip_data structs >> from original part 3 by Hsin-Hsiung Wang >> >> Fixes: a4872e80ce7d2a1844328176dbf279d0a2b89bdb mfd: mt6397: Extract >IRQ related code from core driver >> >> [1] >https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/list/?series=164155 >> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Wunderlich <fran...@public-files.de> >> --- >> drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c | 64 >++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c >> index 310dae26ddff..b2c325ead1c8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c >> @@ -129,11 +129,27 @@ static int mt6397_irq_resume(struct device >*dev) >> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(mt6397_pm_ops, mt6397_irq_suspend, >> mt6397_irq_resume); >> >> +struct chip_data { >> + u32 cid_addr; >> + u32 cid_shift; >> +}; >> + >> +static const struct chip_data mt6323_core = { >> + .cid_addr = MT6323_CID, >> + .cid_shift = 0, >> +}; >> + >> +static const struct chip_data mt6397_core = { >> + .cid_addr = MT6397_CID, >> + .cid_shift = 0, >> +}; > >Will there be other devices which have a !0 CID shift? > >-- >Lee Jones [李琼斯] >Linaro Services Technical Lead >Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs >Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog > >_______________________________________________ >Linux-mediatek mailing list >linux-media...@lists.infradead.org >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
