linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] ARM: regulator: add Freescale MXS regulator driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54108939.5050208@gmx.net>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:24:09 +0200
From:	Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>
CC:	"lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"stefan.wahren@...e.com" <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] ARM: regulator: add Freescale MXS regulator driver

Hi,

Am 10.09.2014 16:18, schrieb Mark Rutland:
>[...]
>
>>>> +       of_property_read_u32(np, "mxs-default-microvolt",
>>>> +                                  &val);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (val)
>>>> +               mxs_set_voltage(rdev, val, val, NULL);
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in my comments on the binding, I'd like to know why this
>>> is necessary and if it is why it shouldn't be a standardised property.
>>
>>   From my understanding the standardised properties only defines a range,
>> but no default state of the regulators. If the initialization from the
>> bootloader or a hardcoded initialization in the driver is okay then the
>> property is not necessary.
>
> Sure. My questions was why it is necessary to preconfigure the
> regulators at all rather than why it is necessary to do so in this
> manner.
>
> Mark.
>

sorry i don't have a clue. In the original code there isn't a comment 
about the reason. Currently there is no init of the vddio regulator by 
the kernel and everything works fine.

@Fabio: Do you have any doubts?

Stefan
--
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/