linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: core: do not disable regulator if boot

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, 25 Nov 2014 16:47:07 +0530
From:	Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@...rtplayin.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	lgirdwood@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: core: do not disable regulator if boot_on
 is set

Hi Mark,

On Tuesday 25 November 2014 04:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 04:23:23PM +0530, Pramod Gurav wrote:
>> Currently the regulator core disables the regulators which are unused
>> or whose reference count is zero or if they are configured always_on.
> 
> No, it does *not* disable them if they are configured always_on (as the
> code you're modifying shows).

Yes, thats a typo.
> 
>> This change adds a check in this logic to see if a regulator is
>> configured as boot_on and does not disable it if found true.
> 
>> -		if (c && c->always_on)
>> +		if (c && (c->always_on || c->boot_on))
>>  			continue;
> 
> This isn't what boot_on means.  It just means that the regulator is
> expected to be enabled at initial power on, it doesn't mean it needs to
> be enabled all the time.  Otherwise there'd be no point in having a
> separate always_on flag.

Thanks for the comment. :-)
> 
--
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/