linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Keep boot

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, 23 Apr 2012 13:25:55 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...ricsson.com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mattias WALLIN <mattias.wallin@...ricsson.com>,
	Jonas ABERG <jonas.aberg@...ricsson.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Keep boot_on regulators powered during
 init

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 01:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >To be honest I don't entirely understand what your goal is at the system
> >level - the current idea is that either the regulator will be marked as
> >always_on or it should be enabled by a consumer.  What is the scenario
> >in which neither of these is sufficient?

> The consumer do not want to enable the regulator directly from its
> device probe routine, it is handled through a scheduled work.

> Moreover the regulator shall not be switched off unless the consumer
> work decides that this is OK.

Cann you be a bit more concrete?  What is this device and why does it
have these requirements?  The most obvious thing to do here is to run
the work in the probe routine.

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