| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20111029174202.GA9646@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:42:02 +0100 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> Cc: 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>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, 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 12:47:57AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > 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? All you're actually doing in this code is adding a function to register a new type of regulator which is exactly equivalent to what the existing regulators provide - there's nothing particularly wrong with the helper function but defining an entirely new regulator type for it doesn't seem useful. -- 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