Driver was written to mimic existing stpmic1 regulator driver, which had
the implicit assumption of a 1:1 relationship between of_match_data and
regulator configuration with same indices.
Yet DCDC_REG5 was not at the same place it was in the rk_regulator_cfg
due to likely a copy-paste mistake, leading to possibly the wrong
regulators being controlled. Fix this.
Reported-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
index 39eadbd3ebe5..57b024cef33c 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c
@@ -829,6 +829,7 @@ static struct of_regulator_match rk809_reg_matches[] = {
MATCH(809, DCDC_REG2, DCDC2),
MATCH(809, DCDC_REG3, DCDC3),
MATCH(809, DCDC_REG4, DCDC4),
+ MATCH(809, DCDC_REG5, DCDC5),
MATCH(809, LDO_REG1, LDO1),
MATCH(809, LDO_REG2, LDO2),
MATCH(809, LDO_REG3, LDO3),
@@ -838,7 +839,6 @@ static struct of_regulator_match rk809_reg_matches[] = {
MATCH(809, LDO_REG7, LDO7),
MATCH(809, LDO_REG8, LDO8),
MATCH(809, LDO_REG9, LDO9),
- MATCH(809, DCDC_REG5, DCDC5),
MATCH(809, SWITCH_REG1, SW1),
MATCH(809, SWITCH_REG2, SW2),
};
--
2.30.2
