linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge configuration

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:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:31:40 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<lgirdwood@...il.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] regulator: core: Add support for active-discharge
 configuration


On Wednesday 02 March 2016 07:14 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 06:08:13PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> + * @active_discharge: Enable/disable active discharge. The values are:
>> + *		      -1: Default, 0: Disable, 1: Enable.
> This isn't a good interface, it means that 0 (which is the default value
> for static constrants or kzalloc()ed constraints) means to actively
> discharge rather than leave the settings unchanged but our general
> policy is to not touch anything unless explicitly told to do so.
>
Yaah, I agree.
I had other option to use 0 as default, 1 as disable and 2 as enable. 
but generally for disable, we use 0 and for enable 1 and that's why I 
went to -1,0,1 approach.

Will it be fine to have this as
   0: Default i..e do not change.
   1: disable.
   2: Enable.