From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DBDC06510 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F9B2173E for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:36:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="WJarnZQl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726475AbfGBLg1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:36:27 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:53722 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725858AbfGBLg1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:36:27 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x62BaMoU122076; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:36:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1562067382; bh=gIRvrIV2Wc21BZQI/yRZvscQEln3l4qrakkgDdK8Yqw=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=WJarnZQlahTj1u4qn9Lq6B2GYYwT0OWR6zhM9VQ7+FoVe3/MPM1kuj/0blE/AXRbg Z1Ts+Q2J3vWmWul6xfRtm9LO2UmKH6OswZ3ZOCZyK5BwlxlYrw+It6m8MdW/es4371 vk+/CHtnXNaT6z0o1SMDlEvw+WeZV+Gu2Cz9z3HI= Received: from DFLE109.ent.ti.com (dfle109.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.30]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x62BaMp6036626 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:36:22 -0500 Received: from DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) by DFLE109.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:36:22 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:36:22 -0500 Received: from [172.24.191.45] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x62BaKLS027112; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 06:36:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement To: Lee Jones , Colin Ian King CC: Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , , References: <20190627131639.6394-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <20190628143628.GJ5379@sirena.org.uk> <4cb0e4ab-66c7-2b3d-27d3-fd5cfde8988f@canonical.com> <20190702104420.GD4652@dell> <4a0a50be-1465-0554-f787-dec72bc07a00@canonical.com> <20190702113157.GG4652@dell> From: Keerthy Message-ID: <0c0e0e49-48c3-c1af-b7c7-26603d98cfe3@ti.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:06:59 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190702113157.GG4652@dell> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/07/19 5:01 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Colin Ian King wrote: > >> On 02/07/2019 11:44, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote: >>> >>>> On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote: >>>>>> From: Colin Ian King >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a >>>>>> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message. >>>>>> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement. >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend. >>>>> >>>> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code >>>> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550 >>> >>> Applied, thanks Colin. >>> >> I'm confused, who is the official maintainer of the regulator patches >> nowadays? > > Mark. But the patch you're fixing is currently in the MFD tree. > > I sent him an updated pull-request. Thanks Lee! > > Don't worry mate, you're in good hands. ;) >