linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 7/7] usb: xhci: plat: add vbus regulator control

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: <20160427103521.GJ3217@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:35:21 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	yendapally.reddy@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 7/7] usb: xhci: plat: add vbus regulator control

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:25:27PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:

> > this to be just a normal regulator_get().

> jokes aside, this regulator is optional because not all platforms
> require a SW controlled regulator, no ? Will normal regulator_get() give
> us a dummy regulator in case it's not listed in DT/ACPI ?

Yes we do that, but even regulators that are not software controlled
should really be described anyway since it's a much simpler rule for
people to understand, it ensures that we can just scale up on systems
where there does happen to be software control and it makes all the
resulting code much simpler and hence less error prone if we're not
randomly ignoring some errors.

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