linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: Support trying to get close to a certain voltage

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: <20141211170934.GZ11764@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:09:34 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: Support trying to get close to a
 certain voltage

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:09:13AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > This is just an implementation detail, everything you're saying here
> > applies equally to any user specifying by tolerance rather than range.
> > If the reason for doing this is to fix that problem then a new API isn't
> > the way to go about it.

> OK, I'll give a shot at taking my code and using it as a new
> implementation for regulator_set_voltage_tol().  In the SD card code
> I'll pick some reasonable tolerances--they won't be exactly what the
> spec says, but they ought to be good enough.  If Ulf comes back and
> yells at me then we can revisit adding a new API.

OK, thanks.  Even if a new interface does get added the implementation
needs to be shared with that for setting by tolerance, they're doing the
same thing.

Please also bear in mind the need to handle shared supplies in your
implementation.

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