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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20100126120058.GN15759@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:58 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.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 06:54:48AM -0500, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Mark Brown

> > 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.

Ah, then the variable step is confusingly named since it's actually a
rate of change rather than a step size - I'd suggest rate or something
like that instead.
--
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/