On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:30:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote: > > > On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote: > > >> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for > > >> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in > > >> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely, > > >> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set > > >> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case > > >> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will > > >> cause probe to fail. > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for fixes. > > > Missed when converting if-else to switch. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms > > using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is > > there anything blocking it? > > Yes, it was sent too late in the cycle. Can we still have this for v4.7? It's clearly -rc material. Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
