linux-kernel - Re: Applied "regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of GPIO number" to the regulator tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181120153215.GC16508@imbe.wolfsonmicro.main>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:32:15 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
CC:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: Applied "regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of GPIO
 number" to the regulator tree

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:58:59PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 
> On 2018-11-20 15:47, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:43:32PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> On 2018-05-17 18:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of GPIO number
> >> This patch causes following kernel warning on Samsung Exynos4412 based
> >> Trats2 board:
> >>
> >> wm8994 4-001a: Failed to get supply 'DBVDD1': -517
> >> wm8994 4-001a: Failed to get supplies: -517
> > How is the wm8994 being registered on this board? I am having
> > difficulty finding a device tree or a board file that relates to
> > the board and includes the wm8994.
> 
> 
> Please check arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412-trats2.dts details. The I2C device
> is defined in exynos4412-midas.dtsi, it uses "wlf,wm1811" compatible.
> 

Ok got it, thanks.

> 
> >>> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ static const struct i2c_board_info wm1277_devs[] = {
> >>>  	{ I2C_BOARD_INFO("wm8958", 0x1a),  /* WM8958 is the superset */
> >>>  	  .platform_data = &wm8994_pdata,
> >>>  	  .irq = GLENFARCLAS_PMIC_IRQ_BASE + WM831X_IRQ_GPIO_2,
> >>> +	  .dev_name = "wm8958",
> >>> +	},
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +static struct gpiod_lookup_table wm8994_gpiod_table = {
> >>> +	.dev_id = "i2c-wm8958", /* I2C device name */
> >>> +	.table = {
> >>> +		GPIO_LOOKUP("GPION", 6,
> >>> +			    "wlf,ldo1ena", GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH),
> >>> +		GPIO_LOOKUP("GPION", 4,
> >>> +			    "wlf,ldo2ena", GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH),
> >>> +		{ },
> >>>  	},
> >>>  };
> > If its being done through a board file I guess you will need the
> > equivalent of this.
> 
> 
> No board file, everything in DT.
> 

This is really weird, because the error in your log relates to
DBVDD1 which is an independent regulator supplied by a separate
regulator. I am really having some difficulty seeing how the
patch interfers. It is definitely that patch which causes the
issue, like you revert it and things work again?

Thanks,
Charles