The regulator ranges aren't really matching what they should be for the
buck and ldo regulators on RK806. They are not wrong per-se but they are
a bit misleading.
The only change in behavior expected is that the buck regulators
shouldn't be able to say that 3.65V is possible.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>
---
Quentin Schulz (2):
regulator: rk808: fix buck range on RK806
regulator: rk808: fix LDO range on RK806
drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: ffd2cb6b718e189e7e2d5d0c19c25611f92e061a
change-id: 20240223-rk806-regulator-ranges-df59c64dcd6d
Best regards,
--
Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:11:21 +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> The regulator ranges aren't really matching what they should be for the
> buck and ldo regulators on RK806. They are not wrong per-se but they are
> a bit misleading.
>
> The only change in behavior expected is that the buck regulators
> shouldn't be able to say that 3.65V is possible.
>
> [...]
Applied to
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next
Thanks!
[1/2] regulator: rk808: fix buck range on RK806
commit: 5803b54068435be3a3254f9ecdc1ebd5c18718a8
[2/2] regulator: rk808: fix LDO range on RK806
commit: 6717ff5533f332ef7294655629b8fa5fb8b132de
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark