linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sdhci: potentially bad behavior when using vmmc supply

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:	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:14:37 +0100
From:	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<pierre.samat@...el.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sdhci: potentially bad behavior when using vmmc
 supply

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >>
> >> This doesn't seems like a case where a gpio regulator should be used
> >> and I am not sure what problem it would solve. Beside to suppress the
> >> log warnings (actually those aren't warnings but informations).
> >>
> >> Isn't sdhci_do_start_signal_voltage_switch() doing what you need here?
> >>
> >
> > It is. I am only wondering the best way to describe the hardware:
> > - No regulator but I have the 'no vqmmc regulator not found' message which
> >   is a bit annoying and which can be interpreted as an issue for someone
> >   who has no knowledge about this stuff.
> 
> Hmm, should we turn them into debug messages? Both regulators are optional.
> 

I think so. From my point of view, it is useless to indicate that
something optionnal is missing.

> > - Describe the regulator since there is one on my board. But it is not a
> >   fixed regulator and even if it's close to a gpio one it is not.
> 
> If it's driven by SDHCI internal logic, I would leave it to that.
> There are no need to describe it at all.

Ok thanks for your help.

> 
> 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/