| 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: <20121213114818.GH27617@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:48:18 +0000 From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] regulator: gpio-regulator: Only read GPIO [dis|en]able pin if not always-on On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:51AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > If a regulator is specified as always-on, then it can't have an > > enable/disable pin, as it can't be turned off. > > Sometimes always on gets set for regulators which do have a physical > control wired up - the control might exist for use in suspend mode for > example. Is the ability to specify an enable pin causing a practical > problem for systems? If it is we should fix that. I'm not sure I understand. My logic is that there is no point in requesting a pin which can disable a regulator that can't be disabled. Then we can follow on from that logic and say that if a regulator is _not_ always on this we _require_ a way to disable it, thus we insist on an enable GPIO pin. With me? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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