linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] regulator: simplify twl4030 config

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:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:04:14 +0200
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] regulator: simplify twl4030 config

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:36:59AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Mark Brown
>
>> > No, this is the wrong way to go about this - why are you making this
>> > change for this one driver only?
>
>> Because that's the only one I care about. I can try to do the same for
>> all the others if you wish.
>
> Yes, of course.  Half the point in having subsystems and standard ways
> of doing things is so that when we look at things we've got a reasonable
> idea as to what they're supposed to be doing and people looking at the
> code can figure out what's going on.   We don't want people to have to
> play guessing games about this stuff.

Of course... *ideally*, but we are not there right now.

>> > Exactly the same argument would apply
>> > to all the other MFD regulators and to all the other MFD subdrivers in
>> > the various subsystems.
>
>> Yes, the ones that closely related to certain architectures or chips.
>
> Obviously all MFDs are closely releated to chips...
>
>> And this is already done:
>>
>> REGULATOR_AB3100:
>>       depends on AB3100_CORE
>>       default y if AB3100_CORE
>
>> (if AB3100_CORE is redundant BTW)
>
>> REGULATOR_TPS6105X:
>>       depends on TPS6105X
>>       default y if TPS6105X
>
> So it's done by a small proportion of drivers...

Yes, so the only question is; is this desirable or not? Personally, I
don't see why a normal person would want to enable REGULATOR and
TWL4030_CORE but not REGULATOR_TWL4030; what's the point of enabling
REGULATOR if it's not going to do anything? Anyway, these people can
still choose REGULATOR_TWL4030=n, but it *certainly* doesn't seem to
be the normal use-case. And that's the whole point of 'default y' to
begin with; to enable by default what most people should say 'y' to.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/