On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:15:58PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Wolfram Sang > > <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The current implementation only works if the da9xxx devices are added > > > before their drivers are registered. Only then it can apply the fixes to > > > both devices. Otherwise, the driver for the first device gets probed > > > before the fix for the second device can be applied. This is what > > > fails when using the IP core switcher or when having the i2c master > > > driver as a module. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > That could also happen when irqc is a victim of deferred probing. > > > > > So, we need to disable both da9xxx once we detected one of them. We now > > > use i2c_transfer with hardcoded i2c_messages and device addresses, so we > > > don't need the da9xxx client devices to be instantiated. Because the > > > fixup is used on specific boards only, the addresses are not going to > > > change. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> (r8a7791/koelsch) > > Can I get a Fixes tag or some indication of if it should apply > to v4.9 or as a fix for v4.8. I'd say: Fixes: 663fbb52159cca ("ARM: shmobile: R-Car Gen2: Add da9063/da9210 regulator quirk") and should go to 4.8. Geert?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature