linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Defer probe if regulator

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: <20121023170723.GD4477@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:07:39 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>,
	Pavan Kunapuli <pkunapuli@...dia.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	cjb@...top.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Defer probe if regulator_get fails

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 01:57 AM, Lucas Stach wrote:

> > Does this work with boards where we don't have any MMC supplies? Or are
> > we just deferring the probe indefinitely there?

> > For boards that power MMC unconditionally, are we supposed to add dummy
> > regulators to make them work with this patchset?

> I believe that dummy (fixed) regulators are supposed to be provided in
> all cases where the platform doesn't actually have one. The fact that
> everything worked OK without them before this patch was most likely a
> mistake/accident.

That's the general idea; clearly there *are* supplies here, they're just
not software controlled supplies.

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