Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190711113517.26077-1-axel.lin@ingics.com> <20190723112647.GE5365@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAFRkauDSbmtGRnE0xvKOKxb=SWOA+03i60Wu-9KHYxh1qFuCEg@mail.gmail.com> <20190723163503.GL5365@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20190723163503.GL5365@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:57:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFRkauBACWC1pcxJe9tJyK4vM2R2BSu2z9sej3GLket3niZg9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT] regulator: lp87565: Fix probe failure for "ti,lp87565"
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> =E6=96=BC 2019=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=
=A5 =E9=80=B1=E4=B8=89 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=8812:35=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:28:35PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> =E6=96=BC 2019=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8823=E6=
=97=A5 =E9=80=B1=E4=BA=8C =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=887:26=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:35:17PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>
> > > > The "ti,lp87565" compatible string is still in of_lp87565_match_tab=
le,
> > > > but current code will return -EINVAL because lp87565->dev_type is u=
nknown.
> > > > This was working in earlier kernel versions, so fix it.
>
> > > This doesn't seem to apply against current code, please check and
> > > resend.
>
> > I re-generate the patch but the new patch is exactly the same as this o=
ne.
> > It can be applied to both Linus and linux-next trees.
> > Did I miss something?
>
> It's a fix so I was trying to apply it on my for-5.3 branch.

The commit f3f4363b1239 ("regulator: lp87565: Fix missing break in
switch statement") from mfd tree has been merged to 5.3-rc1.
So I'm wondering if the better approach is rebase for-5.3 branch to 5.3-rc1=
.
Then you can apply this patch without conflict.

Anyway, I will resend the patch against regulator tree for-5.3.

Regards,
Axel