linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ath10k: snoc: relax voltage requirements

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, 18 Oct 2018 10:56:30 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     kvalo@....qualcomm.com, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Govind Singh <govinds@...eaurora.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ath10k: snoc: relax voltage requirements

Hi,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> I rarely see drivers specify precise voltage requirements like this, but
> if we really have to...let's at least give a little wiggle room. Board
> designs (and accompanying device trees) may not provide exactly the
> voltage listed here, and we shouldn't fail to probe just because of
> this.
>
> Round these ranges down to the nearest volt, and provide a 0.05V margin.
> The regulator should provide its own supported ranges, which will
> helpfully intersect with these ranges.
>
> I would just as well remove these ranges entirely, but if I understand
> correctly, there's some reason that QCOM SoC's like to set zero /
> non-zero voltages.

Yeah, I'll try to up-prioritize working on making that better
(assuming others like my ideas in that area).


> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> index b63ae8b006b4..5a8e87339df2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> @@ -47,10 +47,10 @@ static char *const ce_name[] = {
>  };
>
>  static struct ath10k_vreg_info vreg_cfg[] = {
> -       {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 800000, 0, 0, false},
> -       {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1800000, 0, 0, false},
> -       {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1304000, 1304000, 0, 0, false},
> -       {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3312000, 3312000, 0, 0, false},
> +       {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 850000, 0, 0, false},
> +       {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1850000, 0, 0, false},
> +       {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1300000, 1350000, 0, 0, false},
> +       {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3300000, 3350000, 0, 0, false},

These look fine to me.  I find it really funny that this array has all
those load values and they're all 0, but that's not new to your patch.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>