linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:31:17 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Cc:	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree
 binding

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:26:58PM -0000, Simon Arlott wrote:
> On Fri, December 4, 2015 11:00, Mark Brown wrote:

> > OK, so the power domains should be being represented and managed as such
> > rather than using regulators - it's a better fit (doing things like
> > support atomic context) and it also sidesteps this.  For the things that
> > you say are clearly regulators should we have more information about
> > those?

> I'd prefer to handle them all as power domains since it fits better. Even
> if some of them are regulators there's no extra control or status interface
> and they're used like power domains to disable unused functionality.

OK, great - runtime PM is just generally a more idiomatic interface for
this.

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