On 23/08/2019 17:26, Frank Wunderlich wrote: > > > Am 23. August 2019 16:56:13 MESZ schrieb Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>: >> are you sure that you provide the correct chip_id here? I saw 0x2023 >> (if I >> remember correctly), while this switch checks for 0x23, 0x91 and 0x97, >> so I'm >> not sure if the problem really lies here. I didn't dig into the code to >> find out >> how the chip_id is created. > > The chip-id 0x2023 is reported with 5.3-rc5, next-code says 0x0. So i guess the chipid is read out/calculated the wrong way. If calculation is not changed the read is changed compared to 5.3 > I suppose that's because 3/10 has code that should be in 2/10 and for some reason 3/10 was not pushed for linux-next inclusion. Although it has the same Acked-for-mfd-by tag. @Frank, can you test if adding 3/10 to your code base fixes the issue? Regards, Matthias
