linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/14] regulator: Add function to map modes to struct regulator

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, 04 Nov 2014 12:09:26 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
	Abhilash Kesavan <kesavan.abhilash@...il.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/14] regulator: Add function to map modes to struct
 regulator_desc

On wto, 2014-11-04 at 12:02 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> Thanks a for your feedback.
> 
> On 11/04/2014 11:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> + *
> >> + * @map_modes: Callback invoked to translate between hardware to standard modes.
> > 
> > Initially I thought it should map from standard to hardware. But then I
> > looked at max77802 implementation and it maps from hardware to standard.
> > Anyway I got confused (both are "modes" and both unsigned ints).
> > 
> > Could you describe which should be returned?
> > 
> 
> Sure, maybe rewording to:
> 
> "Callback invoked to translate from hardware to standard modes." ?
> 
> But I'll add also document that the parameter should be a hardware
> mode and the return value a standard mode.

Great!

> 
>  >>   */
> >>  struct regulator_desc {
> >>  	const char *name;
> >> @@ -285,6 +287,8 @@ struct regulator_desc {
> >>  	unsigned int enable_time;
> >>  
> >>  	unsigned int off_on_delay;
> >> +
> >> +	unsigned int (*map_modes)(unsigned int mode);
> > 
> > Shouldn't this be in regulator ops?
> > 
> 
> regulator ops are for the operations that a regulator support
> (enable, disable, set mode, etc). All the thse are actions but
> how to translate between hardware and standard modes is not an
> action but a non-varying configuration of the regulator.
> 
> So I believe that regulator desc was what fit the most. I don't
> have a strong opinion though if people think that it should be
> in regulator ops instead.

I understand, it's fine for me.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


--
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/