linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator bindings

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:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:44:10 -0700
From:   David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator
 bindings

On 04/17/2018 01:06 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> [...]
>> +- qcom,regulator-initial-voltage
> 
> nit: regulator framework tends to include "microvolt" in the name to
> make it really obvious in the device tree what the units are.  Can you
> do that too?

Sure, I'll change the name to be: qcom,regulator-initial-microvolt.


>> +- qcom,drms-mode-threshold-currents
> 
> Could use microamp in the name of the property too...

Ok, I'll change the name to be: qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps.


>> +                       qcom,allowed-drms-modes =
>> +                               <RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_LPM
>> +                                RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM>;
>> +                       qcom,drms-mode-threshold-currents = <10000 1000000>;
> 
> optional nit: to make it match downstream drivers, does it make sense
> to change this to:
> 
>   <9999 999999>
> 
> ...so if a driver used to request exactly 10000 mA that it will end up
> with the same mode (no idea if drivers actually do that).

I'd prefer to leave the example with <10000 1000000> as it looks cleaner
to me and the example numbers are arbitrary.  It would also be good to use
<10000 1000000> in actual board DT files.  We can address consumers
expecting legacy behavior for 10000 uA requests as needed.

Take care,
David


-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project