linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pwm: adp5585: correct mismatched pwm chip info

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <34af5576a5e779a279975dd9fb8be7c2b233f661.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:46:43 +0000
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>, 
	ziniu.wang_1@....com
Cc: laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, nuno.sa@...log.com, lee@...nel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: adp5585: correct mismatched pwm chip info

On Fri, 2025-11-14 at 10:30 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 02:53:08PM +0800, ziniu.wang_1@....com wrote:
> > From: Luke Wang <ziniu.wang_1@....com>
> > 
> > The register addresses of ADP5585 and ADP5589 are reversed.
> 
> My German feeling for the English language suggests:
> s/reversed/swapped/.
> 
> > Fixes: 75024f97e82e ("pwm: adp5585: add support for adp5589")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luke Wang <ziniu.wang_1@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> > index dc2860979e24..806f8d79b0d7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-adp5585.c
> > @@ -190,13 +190,13 @@ static int adp5585_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5589_pwm_chip_info = {
> > +static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5585_pwm_chip_info = {
> >  	.pwm_cfg = ADP5585_PWM_CFG,
> >  	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
> >  	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5585_PWM_ONT_LOW,
> >  };
> >  
> > -static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5585_pwm_chip_info = {
> > +static const struct adp5585_pwm_chip adp5589_pwm_chip_info = {
> >  	.pwm_cfg = ADP5589_PWM_CFG,
> >  	.pwm_offt_low = ADP5589_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
> >  	.pwm_ont_low = ADP5589_PWM_ONT_LOW,
> 
> I wonder how that didn't pop up during development of 75024f97e82e. I
> would expect that the driver doesn't work correctly in a very obvious
> way without this change?! I tend to want to send this to Linus before
> 6.18, but the question makes me wonder if I'm correct with that
> urgency. Any insights?

Yeah, this one I kind of asked for Liu to test it (as I was not testing the PWM bits)
and he did tested it [2]. But it was v2 and that series had some more iterations. So
I suspect that I messed up along the way and the last version of the series was not
tested (for the PWM bits).

[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/3efb68e2-7091-47e1-81a2-39930da5a427@nxp.com/
- Nuno Sá
 
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe