linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

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: <20160411155010.GK3351@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:50:10 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 04:49:02PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:32:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Long term we want a bigger refactoring but
> > I think we need to sort out what's going on with probe ordering in
> > general before we do that, that's part of the problem here - people
> > really aren't happy with deferral and for good reason.

> What happened to correctness first? I thought we had at some point all
> agreed that even if deferred probe wasn't perfect it would at least give
> us correct results. And if all the code in place to properly establish
> the dependencies we could rid ourselves of all the downsides at once if
> ever we came up with a better alternative.

This has never been completely correct since it predates deferred probe
in the first place and was originally relying on init ordering.  Trying
to use deferred probe unconditionally right now would mean rewriting the
registration section of almost every regulator driver which seems a
bigger and more error prone process better approached after the current
issues are resolved.  Without doing that it'd just be shuffling the
problem around again and I'm not convinced it's a good idea to rush such
a large change.  If we just defer in the cases where we have identified
a need to defer that takes a lot of the pressure off and reduces the
risks, a big part of why this is coming up is that we made a change that
affects all drivers so it seems better not to continue making such broad
changes in a hurry.  

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