linux-kernel - Re: [UPDATED v3][PATCH 1/7] regulator: consumer interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:00:51 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lg@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [UPDATED v3][PATCH 1/7] regulator: consumer interface

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:08:48PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Hrm.  I suspect that the documentation which Liam is currently writing
> > (together with some actual in-tree users) will help here.

> Yes, code is only one part of a balanced architecture.
> It's pretty weak at conveying any "big picture" issues,
> especially with only one underlying implementation.  If
> I can't get that picture without reviewing 100+ KBytes
> of code, then something critical is missing...

OK, that's good - from what you were saying it sounded like you had some
more fundamental objection.  Users are probably at least as important as
text documentation here since it's them that people tend to look at when
they need to look at code.  As with a lot of things the core isn't the
best thing to look at since it has to care about the things that it is
abstracting away from users.

> I've been pushing for clear explanations in part because,
> well, nobody else has.  I've come across clear needs for
> basic power switching, to manage sections of both SOCs and
> boards; and less clear needs for voltage adjustment.  I've
> been hoping some of the other folk who have looked at these
> issues would chime in.

The ability to adjust voltage is required for devices like MMC and CPU
frequency control so it needs to be implemented to at least some degree
and if we do it for everything it reduces the number of special cases to
handle.  Systems that don't need or want it can disable it by setting an
exact constraint in the platform code at which point it decays into a
safety feature.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/