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;
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:26:30 +0200
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <e8a918ab-3e7a-b487-db77-df28d56518ce@gmail.com>
References: <1566531931-9772-1-git-send-email-hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com> <1566531931-9772-3-git-send-email-hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com> <trinity-1f82bff1-535e-47cd-9a2f-8faccb56e356-1566562433314@3c-app-gmx-bs11> <e8a918ab-3e7a-b487-db77-df28d56518ce@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [BUG] [PATCH v5 02/10] mfd: mt6397: extract irq related code from core driver
Reply-to: frank-w@public-files.de
To:     linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_van_Dorst?= <opensource@vdorst.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@mediatek.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
From:   Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@public-files.de>
Message-ID: <0A87F427-2D81-412A-9549-09A51A021799@public-files.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Am 23=2E August 2019 16:56:13 MESZ schrieb Matthias Brugger <matthias=2Ebg=
g@gmail=2Ecom>:
>are you sure that you provide the correct chip_id here? I saw 0x2023
>(if I
>remember correctly), while this switch checks for 0x23, 0x91 and 0x97,
>so I'm
>not sure if the problem really lies here=2E I didn't dig into the code to
>find out
>how the chip_id is created=2E

The chip-id 0x2023 is reported with 5=2E3-rc5, next-code says 0x0=2E So i =
guess the chipid is read out/calculated the wrong way=2E If calculation is =
not changed the read is changed compared to 5=2E3