netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] net/smsc911x: Add regulator 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, 27 Oct 2011 22:59:14 +0200
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>,
	Mathieu Poirer <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Robert Marklund <robert.marklund@...ricsson.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] net/smsc911x: Add regulator support

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 17:46, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:21:47PM +0200, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> my gut reaction: smsc911x is working just fine without regulator
>> support for many people, so why do we suddenly need to make it a
>> requirement ?  this is a fairly small amount of code, so adding a
>> smsc911x Kconfig symbol to control the regulator support seems like
>> overkill.  only other option would be to change the patch to not make
>> missing regulators non-fatal.  so i'd probably lean towards the latter
>> (and it sounds like you changed this with earlier versions).
>
> The regulator API contains a series of generic facilities for stubbing
> itself out when not in use - there's no need for individual drivers to
> worry about this stuff, they should just rely on the framework.  The
> main one at the minute is REGULATOR_DUMMY which does what you suggest
> and makes regulator_get() never fail.

i saw that !CONFIG_REGULATOR works great.  my concern is that these
boards don't define any regulators for smsc resources, so if
CONFIG_REGULATOR is enabled to test out unrelated daughter cards, i
don't want the network driver suddenly failing.  Linus' comments
suggest that this is what would happen unless each board file has its
smsc platform resources extended.  maybe i misunderstood what he was saying ?
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html