linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] input: rmi4: Regulator supply support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160512030524.GA1256@tuxbot>
Date:	Wed, 11 May 2016 20:05:24 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:	Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] input: rmi4: Regulator supply support

On Wed 11 May 16:30 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 05/10/2016 08:49 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> >So either we duplicate the regulator support in spi/i2c or we make them
> >optional in the core driver. Sounds like you prefer the prior, i.e. v1
> >of my patch.
> 
> Yes, after all this I think it makes sense to put regulator support in the
> spi/i2c transports like in your v1 patch. I essentially duplicated the irq
> handling code in both transports so I would be ok with duplicating regulator
> support too. It doesn't seem like that much code. But, if this is too much
> duplication we could create some sort of common file and put the common irq
> and regulator support functions which could be called in the transports.
> Similar to how rmi_2d_sensor.c defines some common functions shared between
> rmi_f11 and rmi_f12.
> 

Sounds reasonable, I'm okay with this. Did you have any comments on the
implementation I had in v1?

@Dmitry, do you want me to resend v1?

Regards,
Bjorn