linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support

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, 11 Aug 2016 13:48:21 -0700
From:	Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jaffer Kapasi <jkapasi@...ear.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Add LTC3676 support

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:44:55PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> >> +/* LDO1 always on fixed 0.8V-3.3V via scalar via R1/R2 feeback res */
>> >> +static struct regulator_ops ltc3676_fixed_standby_regulator_ops = {
>> >> +};
>
>> > Remove this, it's pointless.
>
>> as I'm using macro's to define the ops, removing this ends up breaking
>> compilation:
>
>> do you know of some macro foo to best handle this? Part of me wants to
>> ditch the macro's and just simply declare the array of regulators
>> directly as its much easier to read/follow.
>
> Just don't use the macro for that regulator?
>

Mark,

regulators must have a non-null ops field or they will fail
registration so I can't just not assign it. What would be an
appropriate ops structure for a always-on fixed regulator?

Regards,

Tim