linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/16] PM / OPP: Add 'supply-names' binding

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: <20151027081917.GD5505@ubuntu>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:49:17 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, nm@...com,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	rob.herring@...aro.org, lee.jones@...aro.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] PM / OPP: Add 'supply-names' binding

On 23-10-15, 01:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> When we start doing this we also start having to worry about things like
> the sequencing of the updates between the various supplies and end up in
> full on power sequencing (or at least baking some sequencing into the DT
> which will doubtless need extending at some point).

Absolutely.

> I'm not sure that's
> a place we want to end up just yet, I think it's safer to just have a
> little bit of code in the kernel that glues things together in the cases
> where this is needed.  

So you are effectively saying that we shouldn't go ahead with multi
regulator support in OPP library, right?

I went ahead with it as it came as a requirement (specially from
Qcom).

To the problem of sequencing, maybe we can just support that for the
simple case, where supplies will be programmed in the order in which
they are present in the property I added in this patch. And not try to
solve problem for the complex cases, if we feel it is getting ugly.

@Stephen ?

-- 
viresh
--
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/