linux-kernel - RE: [linux-pm] Power Domain Framework

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: <1274131108.2698.161.camel@finisterre.wolfsonmicro.main>
Date:	Mon, 17 May 2010 14:18:28 -0700
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Cc:	Sundar R IYER <sundar.iyer@...ricsson.com>,
	Deepak Sikri <deepak.sikri79@...il.com>,
	Viresh KUMAR <viresh.kumar@...com>,
	Rajeev KUMAR <rajeev-dlh.kumar@...com>,
	Armando VISCONTI <armando.visconti@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vipin KUMAR <vipin.kumar@...com>,
	Shiraz HASHIM <shiraz.hashim@...com>,
	"linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux <STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com>
Subject: RE: [linux-pm] Power Domain Framework

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 22:38 +0200, Linus WALLEIJ wrote:
> [Sundar]

> > This is one of the most important aspect for such a change in the
> > regulator framework: bringing in the domain aspect can encourage all
> > newer (possibly older) architectures to come under a generic umbrella.

> I have the same view, and I've been enouraging Sundar to bring this
> discussion with the community in order to avoid code duplication.

> Of course we can start inventing our own power-domain machine
> like everyone else, but before we do that, let's atleast try to
> do something generic, so bear with us...

So, there's two separate issues here: one is if it makes sense to do a
generic power domain framework and/or, and the other is if it makes
sense for that generic power domain framework to be part of the
regulator API. I do agree that separating out the common bits of power
domain implementation would be good, my concerns here are around the
level of integration with the regulator API.

--
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/