linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] mfd: TPS65910: Fix tps65910_set

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

Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:21:42 -0500
From:	Kyle Manna <kyle.manna@...l7.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
	Jorge Eduardo Candelaria <jedu@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mfd: TPS65910: Fix tps65910_set_voltage

Hi Mark,

I've reviewed the patch and the core regulator framework after reading 
your comments.  This patch worked around a subtle bug that I didn't 
notice and is hence not needed.  The root cause was fixed and the 
voltage selectors work as desired.

Will update the patch series and resend.

- Kyle

On 10/19/2011 08:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:26:27PM -0500, Kyle Manna wrote:
>
> *Always* CC maintainers on patches.
>
>> Previously tps65910_set_voltage() only selected from a fixed number of
>> voltages.  Rename that function to tps65910_set_voltage_sel(). Do the
>> same for tps65911_set_voltage().
> What is the issue being fixed here?  This looks like a stylistic change
> rateher than a bug fix.
>
>> Also add a tps65910_set_voltage that works with the regulator framework
>> and applies the correct voltage with apply_uv is set in the regulator's
>> constraints.
> So this is adding support for a new chip?  Whatever the answer it's
> clearly a distinct change from the above and should therefore be a
> separate patch.
>
>> +	/* Pick the nearest selector */
>> +	for (i = 0; i<  tps65910_regs[id].table_len; i++) {
>> +		new_uV = tps65910_regs[id].table[i] * 1000;
>> +
>> +		if (new_uV>= min_uV&&  new_uV<= max_uV&&
>> +		   (abs(new_uV - midpoint)<  abs(selected_uV - midpoint))) {
>> +			*selector = i;
>> +			selected_uV = tps65910_regs[id].table[i] * 1000;
>> +		}
>> +	}
> This looks wrong, the expected behaviour for the regulator API is that
> the driver will pick the minimum voltage within the range.  Why is this
> being done?

--
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/