linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call regulator_set

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:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:36:01 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        collinsd@...eaurora.org, swboyd@...omium.org,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call
 regulator_set_load() assume max

On Tue 14 Aug 10:06 PDT 2018, Douglas Anderson wrote:

> Not all regulator consumers call regulator_set_load().  On some
> regulators (like on RPMh-regulator) this could be bad since the
> regulator framework will treat this as if consumer needs no load.
> It's much better to assume that a dumb client needs the maximum
> possible load so we get correctness first.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

FWIW, we've had this problem on other devices as well; where the eMMC
won't operate properly unless the supply operates in HPM. We've worked
around this by specifying regulator-system-load for said regulators.

Only drawback with that is that we use DT to work around missing
features in the code. But at least the improved implementation will be
backwards compatible with existing DT.

Regards,
Bjorn