[PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable

From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
To: lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, phh@phh.me, b.galvani@gmail.com,
	stefan@agner.ch
Cc: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:26:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191113182643.23885-1-andreas@kemnade.info> (raw)

LDO9 and LDO10 were listed with the same enable bits.
That looks insane and there are no provisions in the code for handling such
a special case. Also other out-of-tree drivers use a separate bit to
enable it.
Example:
https://github.com/brunotl/kernel-kobo-mx6sl-ntx/blob/master/drivers/regulator/ricoh619-regulator.c
So it seems to be clearly a bug.
I cannot fully check it on my board without schematics and just discovered
this during code analysis for another problem.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
---
 drivers/regulator/rn5t618-regulator.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/rn5t618-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/rn5t618-regulator.c
index eb807a059479..4a91be0ad5ae 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/rn5t618-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/rn5t618-regulator.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static const struct regulator_desc rc5t619_regulators[] = {
 	REG(LDO7, LDOEN1, BIT(6), LDO7DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
 	REG(LDO8, LDOEN1, BIT(7), LDO8DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
 	REG(LDO9, LDOEN2, BIT(0), LDO9DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
-	REG(LDO10, LDOEN2, BIT(0), LDO10DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
+	REG(LDO10, LDOEN2, BIT(1), LDO10DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
 	/* LDO RTC */
 	REG(LDORTC1, LDOEN2, BIT(4), LDORTCDAC, 0x7f, 1700000, 3500000, 25000),
 	REG(LDORTC2, LDOEN2, BIT(5), LDORTC2DAC, 0x7f, 900000, 3500000, 25000),
-- 
2.20.1

