Fix an obvious spelling error in the PMIC compatible in the MMP2
Brownstone DTS file.

Signed-off-by: Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
index 04f1ae1382e7..bc64348b8218 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ &uart3 {
 &twsi1 {
 	status = "okay";
 	pmic: max8925@3c {
-		compatible = "maxium,max8925";
+		compatible = "maxim,max8925";
 		reg = <0x3c>;
 		interrupts = <1>;
 		interrupt-parent = <&intcmux4>;

---
base-commit: 5d0c230f1de8c7515b6567d9afba1f196fb4e2f4
change-id: 20230804-brownstone-typo-fix-f5b16c47d865

Best regards,
-- 
Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:09:30PM +0200, Duje Mihanović wrote:
> Fix an obvious spelling error in the PMIC compatible in the MMP2
> Brownstone DTS file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> index 04f1ae1382e7..bc64348b8218 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ &uart3 {
>  &twsi1 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  	pmic: max8925@3c {
> -		compatible = "maxium,max8925";
> +		compatible = "maxim,max8925";

Maybe a dumb question. Does I2C core still ignore the vendor part? Its
a long time since i did anything with i2c, but i thought for
historical reasons it ignore the vendor?

If this is still true, then yes, this is just a spelling
error. However, if the vendor is being used to match device to driver,
this is more than a spelling issue, and should be directed to stable.

     Andrew

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:43:08 AM CEST Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Maybe a dumb question. Does I2C core still ignore the vendor part? Its
> a long time since i did anything with i2c, but i thought for
> historical reasons it ignore the vendor?
>
> If this is still true, then yes, this is just a spelling
> error. However, if the vendor is being used to match device to driver,
> this is more than a spelling issue, and should be directed to stable.

I have just tested this by changing the MUIC compatible on my (not yet 
upstreamed) samsung,coreprimevelte board from "siliconmitus,sm5504-muic" to 
"siliconnitus,sm5504-muic". With this change USB no longer works, presumably 
because USB probing gets deferred forever since this MUIC referenced in USB's 
extcon never gets probed.

I assume this PMIC would behave identically and thus this should go to stable. 
Would this be done by sending a v2 with the Cc: tag added?

Regards,
Duje

> I assume this PMIC would behave identically and thus this should go to stable. 
> Would this be done by sending a v2 with the Cc: tag added?

Thanks for testing this.  Please also add a Fixes: tag, probably for
when the node was added to DT.

     Andrew