From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>

The SD_VSEL GPIO is fetched twice for no reason. Remove the
duplicate code.

Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
---
Apparently something went wrong when preparing the v3 patch
that got applied to regulator/for-next and is now in linux-next.
---
 drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c | 12 ------------
 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
index 4519e725706cd..8f81d813640d9 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
@@ -1100,18 +1100,6 @@ static int pca9450_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * For LDO5 we need to be able to check the status of the SD_VSEL input in
-	 * order to know which control register is used. Most boards connect SD_VSEL
-	 * to the VSELECT signal, so we can use the GPIO that is internally routed
-	 * to this signal (if SION bit is set in IOMUX).
-	 */
-	pca9450->sd_vsel_gpio = gpiod_get_optional(&ldo5->dev, "sd-vsel", GPIOD_IN);
-	if (IS_ERR(pca9450->sd_vsel_gpio)) {
-		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to get SD_VSEL GPIO\n");
-		return ret;
-	}
-
 	dev_info(&i2c->dev, "%s probed.\n",
 		type == PCA9450_TYPE_PCA9450A ? "pca9450a" :
 		(type == PCA9450_TYPE_PCA9451A ? "pca9451a" : "pca9450bc"));
-- 
2.48.1

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:01:48 +0100, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> The SD_VSEL GPIO is fetched twice for no reason. Remove the
> duplicate code.
> 
> 

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] regulator: pca9450: Remove duplicate code in probe
      commit: 66d8e76e8e85a30fbf9809837e07e15a8c5ccb8b

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark