linux-kernel - Re: Regulator suspend state dt question

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM4voakrYQYrj2do0sYr_h0ZsRifAaLnDgeSxp6Z2e_F+_23uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:32:24 +0530
From:	Abhilash Kesavan <kesavan.abhilash@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, lrg@...com,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olofj@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Regulator suspend state dt question

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:55:11AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
>
>> As of now there is no support in the regulator core to specify the suspend state
>> (mode, enabled/disabled) using dt. I can add new properties specifying
>> the intial_state,
>> mode, enable/disable but I am not too sure if it is appropriate to add
>> such bindings to
>> the device tree as they are not actually describing the hardware.
>
> Well, it does depend on the hardware a bit - some hardware is hard wired
> to only have one possible suspend state due to power up requirements.
> But for a lot of hardware it's flexible...
So, adding such new properties to the drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
file would
not be acceptable right ?
>
>> Is calling regulator_suspend_prepare from a machine specific file an option ?
>
> This is not really relevant, it's an orthogonal thing about when we
> trigger the state transition in the regulator.
OK
>
> It's not clear what a good solution is here, sorry.
Would it be acceptable that I add a new optional "op_mode" property
for max77686 ?
If the property is found in dt then assign the value to
max77686->opmode[i] else use
enable_mask. I'll be doing this in probe for all the regulators.

Thanks for your help.

Abhilash
--
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/