linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulators: Add definition of regulator_set_voltage_time() for !CONFIG

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]

Message-ID: <20140527192923.GC12304@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2014 20:29:23 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	rjw@...ysocki.net, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arvind.chauhan@....com, edubezval@...il.com, pavel@....cz,
	lgirdwood@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulators: Add definition of
 regulator_set_voltage_time() for !CONFIG_REGULATOR

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:37:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> Liam/Broonie: Please see if this can go through Rafael as 2nd patch is dependent
> on it.

Is that likely to happen before the merge window?

> +static inline int regulator_set_voltage_time(struct regulator *regulator,
> +					     int old_uV, int new_uV)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

Hrm, I'd have expected this to return -EINVAL when stubbed.  I'd also
have expected regulator_set_voltage() to return -EINVAL mind you.  I
*suppose* that something that doesn't actually depend on regulator like
cpufreq might not care if the voltage really did change (I bet this was
added for cpufreq) but it's not awesome.

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