linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: Support ramp-up delay for drivers with get

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:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:32:07 -0700
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>
Cc:	Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Support ramp-up delay for drivers with
 get_voltage()

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:17:09AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> This is for the qcom spmi regulator driver. I seem to have put in the
> set_voltage_time_sel op but missed the fact that the regulator core
> wasn't calling that op to find out how much time to delay. So we have
> raw voltage set and get ops and this selector based delay op.

> Do we need to change the ops to be selector based if we want the
> regulator core to delay after changing voltages? Or do we need to put
> the delay directly into the set_voltage() op in the driver?

You need a consistent set of operations.  If you want to use raw
voltages you need to add a raw voltage interface for getting the delay,
not mix selector and non-selector interfaces otherwise we'll run into
problems.  It is not sensible to expect a driver that does not use
selectors to implement selectors for some operations, if a driver *does*
use selectors then it should do so consistently.  The latter is probably
the more sensible option for this driver since it does have a list
operation so does understand selectors.

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