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
