| 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: <4FE238C9.3010408@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:55:37 -0600 From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> To: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: boot_on regulator constraint vs. regulator-boot-on DT property Liam, Mark, I've spotted what seems like a slight inconsistency between the documentation for the boot_on regulator constraint, and the regulator-boot-on DT property documentation. include/linux/regulator/machine.h says: > * @boot_on: Set if the regulator is enabled when the system is initially > * started. If the regulator is not enabled by the hardware or > * bootloader then it will be enabled when the constraints are > * applied. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt says: > - regulator-boot-on: bootloader/firmware enabled regulator ... and of_regulator.c sets the boot_on constraint based on this property. The former quote implies that this is a flag to tell Linux to turn on the regulator when it's first registered, whereas the latter quote implies that it's guaranteeing the state that previous SW placed the regulator into already. I assume the documentation from machine.h is correct, and I should send a patch to make regulator.txt match it? Thanks. -- 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