linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] AB3100 regulator support v3

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: <63386a3d0909021437pe94b5a5m20a63fbad396cd13@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:37:00 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] AB3100 regulator support v3

2009/9/2 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>:

> This looks basically good - my only concern is if the initialisation
> data supplied for the regulators is just setting up the things that can
> be set up via the API or if there's other stuff going on (this was my
> reason for the question I asked the other day).  If there's other stuff
> being configured then I'm happy with the patch modulo the static thing.

OK so this array:

+       /* Set up regulators */
+       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ab3100_reg_init_order); i++) {
+               err = ab3100_set_register_interruptible(ab3100,
+                                       ab3100_reg_init_order[i],
+                                       plfdata->reg_initvals[i]);

The initvals are one-byte registers for each regulator plus 2 bytes
of sleep settings for LDO E and BUCK respectively.

The sleep settings are driven by two HW lines, so a regulator
can react by suspending the regulator on line A or B disjunct
either (logical ||) or both (logical &&). (You don't alter that in
runtime so no API has been developed here.)

Apart from that it's just default-zero undefined bits and default
voltage and default on/off setting. It is mainly written here so
that we have a known state, eventhough the boot loader should
have set them up (thus boot_on for some of them). But I like
to be on the safe side. If you for example download the kernel
through something like JTAG you may not have executed the
boot loader, and the reset power-on defaults can be bad,
for example have regulators enabled that should not be.

Currently the framework will enable the .boot_on regulators
effectively setting this one bit right for all regulators.

For *some* of the boot_on regulators I could also use .apply_uV
to set the voltage bits of course, but only if min_uV
and max_uV is the same which is not the case for all
regulators that are default on here.

And I don't see any way for the core (set_machine_constraints)
to set regulators to *off* by default if they happen to be on at
boot.

So my conclusion is that the array of initial settings is really
needed to:

- Set sleep config bits (you don't want to alter this runtime BTW)
- Set some default voltage levels on variable regulators
- Set some regulators default off
- Thus establish a known initial state

OK?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/