[U-Boot] [PATCH] pmic: Fix pfuze100 bit definitions

[Marek Vasut]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 01:21:36 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
> Hello Marek,

Hi,

> On 11/26/2015 12:15 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > The following patch changed the PFUZE100 swbst register bit definitions
> > and broke PMIC configuration on multiple boards, at least on the novena
> > and gw_ventana. This patch fixes it.
> 
> Ok we missed this in the review. But as I can see it broken only the two
> boards, you mentioned.
> 
> > commit 8fa46350a4c7dca7710362f6c871098557b934ad
> > Author: Peng Fan <Peng.Fan at freescale.com>
> > Date:   Fri Aug 7 16:43:45 2015 +0800
> > 
> >      power: regulator: add pfuze100 support
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam at freescale.com>
> > Cc: Peng Fan <Peng.Fan at freescale.com>
> > Cc: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak at samsung.com>
> > Cc: Tim Harvey <tharvey at gateworks.com>
> > Cc: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant at aikidev.net>
> > ---
> > 
> >   include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h | 8 ++++----
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
> > b/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h index 41cb710..cc019a9 100644
> > --- a/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
> > +++ b/include/power/pfuze100_pmic.h
> > @@ -215,10 +215,10 @@ enum {
> > 
> >   #define SWBST_VOL_MASK	0x3
> >   #define SWBST_MODE_MASK	0xC
> >   #define SWBST_MODE_SHIFT 0x2
> > 
> > -#define SWBST_MODE_OFF	0
> > -#define SWBST_MODE_PFM	1
> > -#define SWBST_MODE_AUTO	2
> > -#define SWBST_MODE_APS	3
> > +#define SWBST_MODE_OFF	(0 << 2)
> > +#define SWBST_MODE_PFM	(1 << 2)
> > +#define SWBST_MODE_AUTO	(2 << 2)
> > +#define SWBST_MODE_APS	(3 << 2)
> > 
> >   /*
> >   
> >    * Regulator Mode Control
> 
> The intentions are good, but this patch fixes one thing and breaks the
> another one, I would prefer avoid this.
> 
> 'git grep -n SWBST_MODE'
> 
> As I can see, you can fix the issue for multiple boards by update only
> two lines in those two boards, which you mentioned.
> 
> So why you moving back those definitions, since they are now used in
> more places?
>
> The line suggested by Peng is good enough to call it 'fix' for your boards:
> 
> (SWBST_MODE_AUTO << SWBST_MODE_SHIFT)

OK, so instead of fixing the patch which introduced a bug, we're supposed to
be fixing the fallout from that. I cannot say I'm very happy with this sort
of handling of a bug and with the testing this particular change received.

Besides, seeing how this patch already needed another patch to make it complete 
and how it now needs more patches to fix the boards which it broke, I am really 
disappointed.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut