linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: Only enable disabled regulators on resume

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:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:57:44 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: Only enable disabled regulators on resume

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 08:40:20AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 03/08/2015 08:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 02:45:00PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> >> The thing is that _regulator_is_enabled() used to return -EINVAL if
> >> the rdev didn't have an .is_enabled callback but that changed in
> >> commit 9a7f6a4c6edc8 ("regulator: Assume regulators are enabled if
> >> they don't report anything") and now returns 1 in that case. But
> >> _regulator_enable() was not changed and is still checking for -EINVAL
> >> which seems to me like a left over after the mentioned commit.

> > You mean _do_enable(), not _enable() here.  It's not really a leftover

> No, I meant _enable() here. What I said is that _enable() is checking
> if -EINVAL was returned by _is_enabled():

Then we have an abstraction problem if we're trying to do things in
plain _enable() - _do_enable() is supposed to be hiding all this stuff.

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