linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator

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: <20160128231306.GD4130@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:13:06 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Chen Zhong <chen.zhong@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	HenryC Chen (陳建豪) 
	<HenryC.Chen@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323
 regulator

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:13:48PM +0100, John Crispin wrote:

> would the following two bindings be ok ? I would create patches to add them.

> * regulator-allow-mode; or regulator-allow-change-mode;

This seems redundant, if we have a list of valid modes presumably they
can be used - same idea as with voltage setting.

> * regulator-modes = <REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY>;

I'm not convinced this binding makes sense, how would a user of the API
(currently there are none in tree) know what the modes mean?  It's a bit
different when the user is supplying configuration for a specific
regulator but this needs to be something that can be used by consumers.

What are you actually trying to do with this?

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