Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: drv2665: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:59:13PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: drv2665: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:59:13PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call >

[PATCH 1/2] Input: drv2665: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to regmap_update_bits(..., mask,

[PATCH 1/2] Input: drv2665: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to regmap_update_bits(..., mask,