linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: add regulator_sync

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]

Message-ID: <20151208165456.GT5727@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:54:56 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@...dia.com>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: add regulator_sync_voltage inline dummy

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:49:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 16:37:39 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > We don't do this for *all* regulator API functions - there's some where
> > using them strongly suggests that there is actually a dependency on the
> > regulator API.  This does seem like it might be falling into the
> > specialist category...

> Ok, got it.

> I guess we'll want something like the patch below in the cpufreq git, right?

Yes, exactly - though looking at the code I'm pretty unclear on what the
authors think the use of _sync_voltage() is doing in the first place so
it may be even better to just remove the call.  It seems to have been
included in the first commit so there's not changelog explaining things
and there's no comment either.  I'd *expect* it to be a noop as far as I
can see.

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