linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support

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]

Date:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:51:26 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com>
Cc:	Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sbkim73@...sung.com,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: s2mps11: Add device tree support

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 05:13:46PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > That's just an issue in the code if that is the case, you can test for
> > the presence of a property independently of getting its value.

> Yes, for that we will need an extra flag (ramp_disable) in
> constraints, to figure out whether
> ramp-rate is actually set to zero or its left (by default) zero if we
> do it in common code as
> now we have locally in driver.

Yes, I agree that makes sense for the constraints.

> I think its matter of assumption, so to conclude our discussion,
> please let me know that which approach we should use:
> - assume "regulator-ramp-delay = <0>" as ramp_disable.
> or
> - parsing "regulator_ramp_disable" from DT.

I prefer the first option.

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