linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core

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: <20091203133200.GX14091@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:32:00 +0100
From:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
	Cliff Brake <cbrake@...-systems.com>,
	Jarkko Lavinen <jarkko.lavinen@...ia.com>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:22:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:

[...]

> > I would expect the power to be killed when the last user stops using it.
> > Which should result in the same effect if you only have one host, one
> > regulator, and one user.
> 
> Yes, it's always fine in that case (modulo always_on and/or regulators
> without power control). 

Well, it didn't for me and always_on, though, due to the return values I
described.

> This goes back to the thing about using
> regulator_get_exclusive(), the message given was that the MMC drivers
> really needed to be able to guarantee that the power would be removed
> when that was requested.
>
> Like I say, if there isn't a *strict* requirement but it's only
> desirable (possibly strongly desirable) then your approach is obviously
> preferable.

The mmci people would need to answer that. To me, the code just looked
like a power saving feature.

If this driver needs it, the only tweak to my patch to let that
particular call site use regulator_get_exclusive, and the core will
still do the right thing. For this case, the behaviour should be exactly
the same than it currently is, correct?

Daniel

--
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/