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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:09:03 +0000 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk> To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> 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 Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:42:35PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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 ...) I would certainly keep OFF as a separate patch, yes. > > 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 > If there are both "requested opmode" and "opmode" attributes > in sysfs, I don't see how one would be "primary"! The one returned by the in-kernel get_mode() and reported as "opmode" is what I'd think of as primary. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists