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: <20160128113840.GA6078@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:38:40 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Henry Chen <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>
Cc:	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Chen Zhong <chen.zhong@...iatek.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323
 regulator

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:16:41PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > No, drivers should *never* enable things that weren't explictly enabled
> > by the machine constraints.  This misses the whole point of having
> > constraints.  They are there so that the system integrator can enable
> > the functionality that is safe on a given board.  

> Okay..the constrains should be define on device tree.
> But which optional properties was suitable to fill on device tree if consumers want to call
> regulator_set_mode directly ?
> I have check the of_regulator.c and not found the suitable property name which can set valid_modes_mask & valid_ops_mask.

If you need to change the mode at runtime you will need to develop a
binding for that, there isn't one at present.

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