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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:26:48 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.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 Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:29AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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?

I rather suspect Axel is doing this based on code inspection and review
rather than testing (either that or he has an enormous lab somewhere
full of all sorts of hardware!) - what he's saying is that the error
handling here seems excessive.

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