linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: core: allow consumers to request to closes step voltage

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130621095157.GK27646@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:51:57 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: core: allow consumers to request to
 closes step voltage

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:45:42AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 23:38-20130619, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If the consumer can tolerate a different voltage why not just request
> > the range that can be tolerated?  Your problem here is specifying an
> > exact voltage.

> I think you mean using regulator_get_linear_step

No, I don't.  Why would that make sense?  It limits the regulators that
can be used and the properties of the regulator have no impact on what
the SoC can support.

> > Or as I keep telling you guys the consumer can just do that directly
> > using the existing API; the whole point in specifying the voltage as a
> > range is to allow the consumer to cope with arbatrary regulators by
> > giving a range of voltages that it can accept.

> I agree. The intent of this series was to start a conversation to see if
> we can make it simpler.

It's already very simple.  The consumer driver just needs to supply the
list of voltages which it can accept, that's all.

> For a generic driver which needs to handle platforms which
> have tolerance, they'd use regulator_set_voltage_tol. But the
> implementation would allow for uV - tol to uV + tol as range, which in
> the case I mentioned(min voltage =uV) wont work.

So just write it as an explicit voltage range then.  For example many
devices can tolerate any supply up to the maximum rated supply at any
frequency so just specify that as the upper limit.

> If the consumer wants to be aware of linear step regulator, they'd have to do:
> step_uV = regulator_get_linear_step(...);
> regulator_set_voltage(uV, uV + step_uV);

No, the consumer really doesn't want to be aware of linear step
regulators.  Why would it care that there even are linear steps?  If
the consumer is doing this based on the properties of the regulator
rather than on the properties of the consumer this indicates that the
consumer has a problem  If the consumer is doing this based on the
properties of the regulator rather than on the properties of the
consumer this indicates that the consumer has a problem

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