linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc3] regulator: add REGULATOR_MODE

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]

Message-Id: <200811121342.36117.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:42:35 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc3] regulator: add REGULATOR_MODE_OFF

On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:56:19PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:

> > > I'm also wondering if part of what we need to do is add separate out the
> > > reporting paths for the actual and requested status?  At the minute we
> > > only report the actual status and there's no indication of the logical
> > > status which does create some confusion here.
> 
> > Makes sense.  Record "requested_mode" in "struct regulator_dev"
> > and expose a new sysfs attribute for it.  Should I update
> > the $SUBJECT patch to do that too?
> 
> It should be a separate patch, I'd say.

So you think I should split my "v2" patch in two chunks?
One distinguishing requested-vs=actual mode, and the other
allowing the actual mode to include OFF.  (Possibly by just
reporting mode 0 ...)


> Thinking about it I'm not sure if the hardware or logical state should
> be the primary.  In terms of debugging power consumption and so on the
> physical state is probably the more important one but from the point of
> view of Linux it's the logical state that matters most since that's what
> Linux is actually doing (IYSWIM).

If there are both "requested opmode" and "opmode" attributes
in sysfs, I don't see how one would be "primary"!

The difference is that one needs to be reported by hardware,
and the other is trivially remembered by framework software.

- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/