linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] regulator: introduce regulator_get_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:50:23 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, alkml@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] regulator: introduce regulator_get_voltage_floor

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:

> +	num_voltages = regulator_count_voltages(regulator);
> +	if (num_voltages < 0)
> +		return num_voltages;

> +	for (i = 0; i < num_voltages; i++) {
> +		now = _regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i, 0);
> +		if (now < 0)
> +			continue;
> +		if (now < best && now >= min_uV)
> +			best = now;
> +	}

Why is this not a factoring out of existing code (indeed it is itself a
reimplementation of regulator_map_voltage_iterate())?  This will also be
a substantial performance loss in cases where we have a known mapping
function - we should use a map_voltage() operation if one exists like we
do in _do_set_voltage().  That has logic to handle missing mapping
functions as a transition measure, now I look at it we should probably
remove that code and just require that the mapping function is set if
appropriate.

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