linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/01] regulator: support max8649

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:54:48 -0500
From:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/01] regulator: support max8649

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:26:08AM -0500, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>
> This all looks good except...
>
>> +static int max8649_enable_time(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>
> ...
>
>> +     return (voltage / step);
>
> I'd expect the time taken to enable to be the voltage multipled by the
> step size rather than divided by the step size?
>

I don't agree at this point. The unit of step is uV/uSec. The function
should return uSec. So voltage divided by the step is more reasonable.

Others are updated.

Thanks
Haojian

View attachment "0001-regulator-enable-max8649-regulator-driver.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (13590 bytes)