linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optional regulator 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:40:28 +0100
From:	Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optional regulator support

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 30 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> This patch series adds a variant of regulator_get() which allows
> regulator consumers to tell the core that the supply they are requesting
> may genuinely be absent in the system.  The goal is to help address some
> of the problems with handling errors in regulator_get() in drivers that
> are newly converted to the regulator API by allowing the core to provide
> stub regulators for supplies that aren't hooked up without disrupting
> the operation of drivers like MMC drivers which may genuinely not have
> some of their supplies hooked up.
>
> Currently the code simply introduces a new API call with exactly the
> same implementation as regulator_get() so there should be zero impact
> from the series other than a slightly larger kernel.

Looks good:

Acked-by: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>

> Right now all the MMC users are converted over as-is, though it does
> look like drivers such as sdhci really ought to be insisting on having a
> regulator for VMMC in the same way that the MMC core helper does (and
> indeed in that case it looks like it ought to be converted over to the
> core code).

I didn't follow this part -- I don't think the MMC core insists on a
VMMC regulator, and I don't think sdhci should either, because e.g.
an x86 laptop isn't going to have one.  What am I missing?

Thanks,

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@...top.org>   <http://printf.net/>
--
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/