linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set

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]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFroe9N3j9oMWKknH5huv7j8fkrBr5UKjjp190hkqNsNRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:55:50 +0100
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
	Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
	Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
	Johan Rudholm <johan.rudholm@...s.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...il.com>,
	Andrew Gabbasov <andrew_gabbasov@...tor.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()

On 19 March 2015 at 12:36, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:14:11PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
>> Agree. Moreover we need that API to also pick the closest value to
>> target, when trying the range "target->minimum". I also believe it
>
> The implementation *should* do that anyway, it's just not trivial to
> implement in an efficient fashion with the current information we have
> from drivers.

The APIs regulator_count_voltages() and regulator_list_voltage(), are
currently used from the mmc core to find out which voltages that is
supported (with 0.1V granularity). Then that information can be used
when trying to set a new voltage.

But I guess such a wrapper API is out of the question?

Anyway, I get the feeling that we will need to do the same for this case.

>
>> would be good to allow both upper and lower limits to be zero.
>
> The lower limit can be zero already though it isn't clear to me that
> this is useful.  Setting an upper limit of zero seems nonsensical, an
> upper limit that is lower than the lower limit isn't terribly obvious
> and removing the upper limit isn't safe - it means that we'll happily
> oversupply things which is a road to physical damage.

I am not sure I follow here. In the regulator_set_voltage_tol() you
can only specifiy one limit (tolerance?). What Dough proposed was to
add a new API which can have both a low tolerance value and a high
tolerance value.

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/