Hello Marek,
On 11/26/2015 02:08 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 01:21:36 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Marek,
Hi,
On 11/26/2015 12:15 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
The following patch changed the PFUZE100 swbst register bit definitions
and broke PMIC configuration on multiple boards, at least on the novena
and gw_ventana. This patch fixes it.
Ok we missed this in the review. But as I can see it broken only the two
boards, you mentioned.
commit 8fa46350a4c7dca7710362f6c871098557b934ad
Author: Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com>
Date: Fri Aug 7 16:43:45 2015 +0800
power: regulator: add pfuze100 support
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@freescale.com>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com>
Cc: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
Cc: Tim Harvey <thar...@gateworks.com>
Cc: Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@aikidev.net>
---
include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
b/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h index 41cb710..cc019a9 100644
--- a/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
+++ b/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
@@ -215,10 +215,10 @@ enum {
#define SWBST_VOL_MASK 0x3
#define SWBST_MODE_MASK 0xC
#define SWBST_MODE_SHIFT 0x2
-#define SWBST_MODE_OFF 0
-#define SWBST_MODE_PFM 1
-#define SWBST_MODE_AUTO 2
-#define SWBST_MODE_APS 3
+#define SWBST_MODE_OFF (0 << 2)
+#define SWBST_MODE_PFM (1 << 2)
+#define SWBST_MODE_AUTO (2 << 2)
+#define SWBST_MODE_APS (3 << 2)
/*
* Regulator Mode Control
The intentions are good, but this patch fixes one thing and breaks the
another one, I would prefer avoid this.
'git grep -n SWBST_MODE'
As I can see, you can fix the issue for multiple boards by update only
two lines in those two boards, which you mentioned.
So why you moving back those definitions, since they are now used in
more places?
The line suggested by Peng is good enough to call it 'fix' for your boards:
(SWBST_MODE_AUTO << SWBST_MODE_SHIFT)
OK, so instead of fixing the patch which introduced a bug, we're supposed to
be fixing the fallout from that. I cannot say I'm very happy with this sort
of handling of a bug and with the testing this particular change received.
You are right, the mentioned patch breaks your boards, and we missed
this in the review as I mentioned - sorry for that.
But for now, there is also other code based on those definitions, so you
can not just revert only this particular change and ignore the rest -
because it breaks the new code? Should we all work in this way?
As a custodian I'm not able to test everything, especially when I don't
have the hardware for it. Moreover I trust people who are working for
this project and I can imagine that they test the code.
Besides, seeing how this patch already needed another patch to make it complete
and how it now needs more patches to fix the boards which it broke, I am really
disappointed.
I can't understand what is the problem. You send new patch with two
simple lines - it fixes your issue and doesn't break the existing PMIC
driver. I think, this is what we need here.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Best regards,
--
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marc...@samsung.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
