drivers: regulator: axp192: fix init priority #64672
Conversation
zephyrbot
added
area: Regulators
Trivial
|
Your hash reference in the commit message is unclear, if you want to refer to the PR use #64072, but if you want to refer to the short hash (which is the right thing to do IMO) then you should use 66f5fce, as that's the sha of the rebased commit. Could you update the message? UPDATE: 66f5fce is the right one |
|
@fabiobaltieri This should have been merged before #64673 but I've forgotten to say that. |
Yeah it's alright, happens, let's fix the reference in the commit message and get this in as well. |
bbilas
force-pushed
the
regulator-axp129-fix-init-priority
branch
from
b8bee23 to
f7def95
Compare
Done. |
fabiobaltieri
added
the
Hotfix
|
@fabiobaltieri nah, it seems that we need to override that priority for m5stack_core2 to smaller than DISPLAY_INIT_PRIORITY which is 85 because of that failure. |
That was missed in 66f5fce commit so let's adjust it as well. Signed-off-by: Bartosz Bilas <[email protected]>
bbilas
dismissed stale reviews from nashif, mniestroj, fabiobaltieri, gmarull, and aasinclair
via
6af0b9d
bbilas
force-pushed
the
regulator-axp129-fix-init-priority
branch
from
f7def95 to
6af0b9d
Compare
axp192 is used by the display controller and gpio hog subsys thus we need to set this priority to the smaller value. Signed-off-by: Bartosz Bilas <[email protected]>
bbilas
force-pushed
the
regulator-axp129-fix-init-priority
branch
from
6af0b9d to
6646dee
Compare
|
I'll be honest, I think SPI init priority should have been changed instead, I tried before and got pushed back. But that before doing the build time validation. But now I have other idea so I guess whatever magic combination of number works will do until we come up with something better. |
Yup, SPI priority seems to be too high compared to the e.g I2C which makes many troubles. |
f65fa6b#r1018151330 this was the conversation at the time, basically it was probably fine but no one wanted to sign off a potential regression, but we had no tools at the time, may be worth bringing it back up. |
Let's open the Pandora box once again! |
Be careful. It can be considered a "breaking change" a "treewide change", or even a "stable API change", in all cases, be prepared to have fun. |
It would be interesting to see the CI results. |
Go Twister! https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr-testing/actions/runs/6735192515/job/18307793563 |
|
@bbilas seems like the answer is: nothing, at least for the push run https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr-testing/runs/18312769006 |
well, who is gonna sign off? ;) Let's make a PR and try to sort it out. |
Ahhh... your turn! :-) |
That was missed in 66f5fce commit so let's adjust it as well.