| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:20 +0900 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:20:10AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:08:15AM -0700, David Collins wrote: > > I agree that it would be beneficial to change regulator_dev.supply from > > type struct regulator_dev * to type struct regulator *. However, I think > > that going that route will be a major undertaking with a lot of details to > Hrm, it doesn't look too bad - as far as I can see it should just be > fairly direct refactorings of each of get, put, enable and disable? I had a look at this, it all looks very straightforward apart from get where we need to either do a dance to set up a supply mapping or restructure to expose the core get operation internally without map lookups (the latter I think) and that doesn't seem terribly invasive. I may actually try coding it up next time I'm sitting in front of an appropriate test system. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists