linux-kernel - Re: Regulator enable/disable delay based on board design: How to handle?

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: <20120214010946.GE11931@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:09:47 -0800
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regulator enable/disable delay based on board design: How to
 handle?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:28:00PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> Interesting, Many regulator driver is written like it just take the
> regulator_init_data as the platform data and does not leave any
> option to add any new platform parameters.
> Not sure how can we add platform data without too much tempering on
> the existing user, but if we can add parameter of delay(settling
> time) in struct regulator_init_data then almost all driver can
> support such platform specific delay.

This is part of the reason why the driver_data field is present in the
constraints - the driver can take that and use it as a pdata within
pdata structure.  It's not terribly nice to do that but it's possible.
A standard parameter might cause too much complexity as drivers try to
implement it even if they don't really need to (for example, due to
having soft control of this stuff already).

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)