linux-kernel - Re: Question about fixed regulator DT properties

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: <20141126175304.GM7712@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:53:04 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about fixed regulator DT properties

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 25.11.2014 14:17, Mark Brown wrote:

> b) "regulator-boot-on" does not mean that the regulator is controlled by
> bootloader or firmware exclusively.

That's correct...

> >>> Should documentation be updated to reflect "regulator-boot-on" role that
> >>> a regulator is re-enabled by the kernel?

> > I'm confused about this.  That's the sole purpose of the flag and as far
> > as I can tell it's what the documentation says.

> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt says:

>   - regulator-boot-on: bootloader/firmware enabled regulator

> I would suggest to add Linux kernel to that list of regulator
> controllers, if it is the intention. In its current state the
> documentation makes an impression that "regulator-boot-on" property
> instructs the kernel to ignore regulator setup, since it is already
> controlled by bootloader or firmware.

No, not at all.  It's referring to the state when Linux starts.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)