linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] regulator: qcom-rpm: Regulator driver for the Qualcomm RPM

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: <20140529220426.GQ5099@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 29 May 2014 23:04:26 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] regulator: qcom-rpm: Regulator driver for the
 Qualcomm RPM

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:59:38PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > No, this is awful and there's no way in hell that stuff like this should
> > be implemented in a driver since there's clearly nothing at all hardware
> > specific about it.  The load tracking needs to be implemented in the
> > framework if it's going to be implemented, and passing it up through the
> > chain is obviously going to need some conversion and accounting for
> > hardware conversion losses which doesn't seem to be happening here.
> >
> > I'm still unclear on what the summed current is going to be used for,
> > though...

> You do load accumlation of all the requests from the drivers of the Linux
> system, but in the Qualcomm system there might be load from the modem or the
> sensor co-processor that we don't know about here. So additional accumulation
> is done by the "pmic" - that is directly accessed by those other systems as
> well.

So the resulting load is then set directly in hardware instead of
setting a mode?  That would be totally fine but it doesn't free us from
having the logic for accumilating the current we know about in the core;
that's the bit that's just at completely the wrong abstraction layer.

> I understand your strong opinions regarding this, so I will respin this to
> forcefully set the regulator mode intead of merely casting a vote.  I.e.
> implement set_mode to actually set the mode.

Or just don't implement mode setting if it's only used by this crazy
stuff.

> But as there are no users anymore, I could just let the constraints part go for
> now and once we've figured out the dt part there will be some way of setting
> these. Okay?

Yes, that's fine.

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