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:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:32:31 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Applied "regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply regulators" to the regulator tree

The patch

   regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply regulators

has been applied to the regulator tree at

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git 

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

>From bb8a41b052bb418b349100a97f0dbc57417d9a9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:37:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core: Propagate voltage changes to supply
 regulators

Until now changing the voltage of a regulator only ever effected the
regulator itself, but never its supplies. It's a common pattern though
to put LDO regulators behind switching regulators. The switching
regulators efficiently drop the input voltage but have a high ripple on
their output. The output is then cleaned up by the LDOs. For higher
energy efficiency the voltage drop at the LDOs should be minimized. For
this scenario we need to propagate the voltage change to the supply
regulators. Another scenario where voltage propagation is desired is
a regulator which only consists of a switch and thus cannot regulate
voltages itself. In this case we can pass setting voltages to the
supply.

This patch adds support for voltage propagation. We do voltage
propagation when the current regulator has a minimum dropout voltage
specified or if the current regulator lacks a get_voltage operation
(indicating it's a switch and not a regulator).

Changing the supply voltage must be done carefully. When we are
increasing the current regulators output we must first increase the
supply voltage and then the regulator itself. When we are decreasing the
current regulators voltage we must decrease the supply voltage after
changing the current regulators voltage.

Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index f15b04548715..771c6235cced 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2769,6 +2769,8 @@ static int regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(struct regulator *regulator,
 	int ret = 0;
 	int old_min_uV, old_max_uV;
 	int current_uV;
+	int best_supply_uV = 0;
+	int supply_change_uV = 0;
 
 	/* If we're setting the same range as last time the change
 	 * should be a noop (some cpufreq implementations use the same
@@ -2812,10 +2814,58 @@ static int regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(struct regulator *regulator,
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto out2;
 
+	if (rdev->supply && (rdev->desc->min_dropout_uV ||
+				!rdev->desc->ops->get_voltage)) {
+		int current_supply_uV;
+		int selector;
+
+		selector = regulator_map_voltage(rdev, min_uV, max_uV);
+		if (selector < 0) {
+			ret = selector;
+			goto out2;
+		}
+
+		best_supply_uV = _regulator_list_voltage(regulator, selector, 0);
+		if (best_supply_uV < 0) {
+			ret = best_supply_uV;
+			goto out2;
+		}
+
+		best_supply_uV += rdev->desc->min_dropout_uV;
+
+		current_supply_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev->supply->rdev);
+		if (current_supply_uV < 0) {
+			ret = current_supply_uV;
+			goto out2;
+		}
+
+		supply_change_uV = best_supply_uV - current_supply_uV;
+	}
+
+	if (supply_change_uV > 0) {
+		ret = regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(rdev->supply,
+				best_supply_uV, INT_MAX);
+		if (ret) {
+			dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to increase supply voltage: %d\n",
+					ret);
+			goto out2;
+		}
+	}
+
 	ret = _regulator_do_set_voltage(rdev, min_uV, max_uV);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto out2;
 
+	if (supply_change_uV < 0) {
+		ret = regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(rdev->supply,
+				best_supply_uV, INT_MAX);
+		if (ret)
+			dev_warn(&rdev->dev, "Failed to decrease supply voltage: %d\n",
+					ret);
+		/* No need to fail here */
+		ret = 0;
+	}
+
 out:
 	return ret;
 out2:
@@ -2847,11 +2897,11 @@ int regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator *regulator, int min_uV, int max_uV)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	mutex_lock(&regulator->rdev->mutex);
+	regulator_lock_supply(regulator->rdev);
 
 	ret = regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(regulator, min_uV, max_uV);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&regulator->rdev->mutex);
+	regulator_unlock_supply(regulator->rdev);
 
 	return ret;
 }
-- 
2.6.1

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ