linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support

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:	Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:16:27 +0200
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Provide dummy supply support

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 00:47, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:59:31PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26:58PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>
>> >  drivers/regulator/Makefile        |    2 +-
>> >  drivers/regulator/dummy-supply.c  |   88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> We already have a dummy regulator driver and a fixed voltage regulator
>> driver, we shouldn't be adding a third implementation of the same thing.
>> Just use the fixed voltage regulator for this.
>
> I explained in my mail why I think that the current implementation of
> the dummy regulator is not suitable for things apart from debugging.
>
> My main concern with the fixed regulator is that it needs quite much
> boilerplate code just to say that we have no regulator at all for a
> given device. That could also be handled with a helper function which
> registers a fixed regulator and only takes the regulator_consumer_supply
> as an argument. Would that be ok for you?

i think Mark's point is that we have code in dummy.c already to
provide a dummy regulator.  so your needs sounds like it could be
satisfied with some Kconfig/ifdef massaging and the existing
drivers/regulator/dummy.c rather than introducing a completely
parallel file that is always enabled ?
-mike
--
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/