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: <20081112230901.GA8272@sirena.org.uk>
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/