linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:04:49 +0800
From:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	<patches@...aro.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lrg@...com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: helper routine to extract
 regulator_init_data

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:47:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:33:55PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:00:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > It's not just Linux-specific stuff, some of this is even specific to
> > > what current Linux drivers can do - updating the kernel could mean a
> > > different set of constraints.
> 
> > Well, from what I see, the 'struct regulation_constraints' is defined
> > in machine.h and meant to be the regulator machine/board interface.
> 
> ...which will depend on the system integrator's understanding of what
> their system is capable of right now.
> 
> > With the example I'm looking at, mc13892, the regulation_constraints
> > configuration is fully passed from machine/board file.  If there is
> > something specific to what drivers can do, it probably should be encoded
> > in regulator driver rather than staying in regulation_constraints.
> 
> I don't think you're quite understanding the issue - it's an integration
> problem with three different variables.  It's a combination of what the
> chips can do, what the drivers can do and if the board design affects
> any of this stuff.
>
Honestly, I'm still pretty new to regulator subsystem, so really need
your help to understand the situation.

> Only the board can come to a final decision.
> 
The dts is very capable and suitable to describe the board's decision.
But you disagree that we put all constraints description into DT.  I'm
a pretty confused here.  So again, what is your suggestion to this
'problem'?

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

--
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/