linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other than SM0/1 is not fatal

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: <5123ACA1.9000408@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:47:29 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <mike@...pulab.co.il>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: tps6586x: Having slew rate settings for other
 than SM0/1 is not fatal

On 02/16/2013 04:50 AM, Axel Lin wrote:
> Ignore the setting and show "Only SM0/SM1 can set slew rate" warning is enough,
> then we can return 0 instead of -EINVAL in tps6586x_regulator_set_slew_rate().
> 
> Otherwise, probe() fails.

Why does probe() fail; what is trying to set a slew rate on a regulator
that doesn't support it? At least a few days ago in linux-next, this
patch wasn't needed AFAIK. Is the problem something new?

--
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/