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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:56:39 +0530 From: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] regulator: s2mps11: Refactor setting ramp delay Hi Krzysztof, On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote: > Prepare for merging the s2mpa01 regulator driver into s2mps11 by: > 1. Adding common id for buck regulators. > 2. Splitting shared ramp delay settings to match S2MPA01. > 3. Adding a configuration of registers for setting ramp delay for each > buck regulator. > > The functionality of the driver should not change as this patch only > prepares for supporting S2MPA01 device. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> > --- > drivers/regulator/s2mps11.c | 210 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > [snip] > > - if (ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay34) > - s2mps11->ramp_delay34 = ramp_delay; > + if (ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay3) > + s2mps11->ramp_delay3 = ramp_delay; > else > - ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; > - > - ramp_shift = S2MPS11_BUCK34_RAMP_SHIFT; > - ramp_reg = S2MPS11_REG_RAMP; > + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay3; > break; > case S2MPS11_BUCK4: > - enable_shift = S2MPS11_BUCK4_RAMP_EN_SHIFT; > if (!ramp_delay) { > ramp_enable = 0; > break; > } > > - if (ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay34) > - s2mps11->ramp_delay34 = ramp_delay; > + if (ramp_delay > s2mps11->ramp_delay4) > + s2mps11->ramp_delay4 = ramp_delay; > else > - ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay34; > - > - ramp_shift = S2MPS11_BUCK34_RAMP_SHIFT; > - ramp_reg = S2MPS11_REG_RAMP; > + ramp_delay = s2mps11->ramp_delay4; Main rationale behind shared value is completely omitted here, in other cases also, after just giving a NOTE in documentation asking user to make sure to pass same value. It doesn't seem safe, simply leaving a scope of stability issue (in case ramp_delay3 > ramp_delay4). Regards, Yadwinder -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists