linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] regulator: support multiple dummy fixed regulators

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: <20120618163758.GU3974@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:37:58 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] regulator: support multiple dummy fixed regulators

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 06:30:30PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Mark Brown wrote:

> > None of this seems terribly obvious to me.  Once we're getting into
> > allowing the user to specify a voltage (and possibly other parameters)
> > for the regulator it's hopefully going to refer to an actual thing we
> > can point at on the board rather than a virtual thing we've got to
> > satisfy software so giving it a useful name seems more useful (like a
> > name correspoding to the relevant supply on the schematic).  

> Sorry, don't understand. What do you mean by a "virtual" supply? There is 
> a device, it is functional, doesn't this mean, that something is supplying 
> power to it? And if power is supplied, then it also hopefully has a 
> certain voltage :) Why I need to know it - to set an MMC OCR mask.

It's for cases where people can't be bothered to specify the supply
properly but want to just put something in there to satisfy the sofware
without providing any useful information.  There will be one or more
physical supplies but the software is being non-committal about them.

> > There's also the fact that there shouldn't be any need for unique
> > regulator names internally so if it really doesn't matter we should be
> > able to give everything the same name happily enough.

> What about entries under /proc/sys/debug/regulator/? Don't they have to be 
> unique?

Meh, yes.  I did try to make them readable.  But then making up the
names in this fashion does rather defeat the point there...

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