Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Since this patch will actually make the various ACT8600 regulators work at their specified voltage, maybe the voltage on one of the updated regulators is wrong?
>>>
>>> Maybe change the regulators one by one back to their old name, until you find the one that is problematic? That may give us more info.
>>
>> That is what I also have though about but have not yet done.
>> Will try as soon as I find a time slot.
>
> I have reverted the whole patch (had only a conflict in wifi_io / LDO6) and now I can boot.
>
> But do not see a WiFi or Bluetooth interface.
>
> So it looks as if the CI20 variants are indeed different. Which would also explain why we
> originally came up with two different solutions to add WiFi.
>
> Next I will try to bisect the individual changes...
It is this and not the regulator names:
diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
index e2221d44e4269..391be48e6427a 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
@@ -295,7 +295,6 @@ &i2c0 {
act8600: act8600@5a {
compatible = "active-semi,act8600";
reg = <0x5a>;
- status = "okay";
regulators {
vddcore: SUDCDC1 {
Now I wonder how it works without status = "okay" for you but not for me.
Does your test branch have additional patches which add this back?
Or does your board variant have better or different burnt in defaults than
my act8600 so that it runs without any driver?
The chip reads as:
ACTIVE
8601QJ
MD361
BR,
Nikolaus
