linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator 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:	Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:41:42 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:33:20AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

> Yeah ... but this sounds familiar, (searching searching) Yes! We did ask on
> the lists if regulators were proper for modeling power domains in 2008:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=121580531500758&w=2

> But I should've pushed for a proper answer ...

It's not unreasonable to use regulators to model the domains (or as part
of modelling the domains, I'd imagine some systems will be able to do
things to regulators as a result of power domain actions).  So long as
the hookup which might affect other systems is done from SoC specific
code and doesn't impact other systems) there shouldn't be an issue from
a framework point of view.

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