linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: core: Allow use of "status = disabled" in regulator dts nodes

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:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:32:03 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: core: Allow use of "status = disabled" in
 regulator dts nodes

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:54:48PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 27-04-16 17:52, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >On 27-04-16 17:50, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:01:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> >>>To repeat you really shouldn't have *any* DT nodes for regulators that
> >>>aren't in use, there should be nothing to put in their nodes.  If
> >>>there's anything there that's a sign that your DT has problems.

> >>How should we deal with regulators that are on by default but are not
> >>used in the system then?

> >I think we've already solved that one, we do list them, thereby giving the
> >regulator core permission to touch them and then let the regulator core
> >turn them off for us.

Yes.

> To clarify, I do not believe that this is not about not having nodes for
> unused regulators, but about not having nodes for regulators which should not
> be touched.

Correct.  If we have constraints for a regulator then they should be
accurate.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)