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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 16:55:51 -0700
From:	Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>
To:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	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 05/13/2016 03:29 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 12 May 17:52 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2016 08:05 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I tested on a device which has an always on regulators so I didn't add
>> anything to device tree for the device. But, it returned 0 when it didn't
>> find anything which seems to be the correct behavior. Is there an easy way
>> to avoid sleeping for 10ms when there are no regulators? Maybe check if both
>> the supplies .consumer pointer is null?
>>
> I did look at this as well, but unfortunately the regulators does not
> come back as NULL, but rather as dummy regulators.
>
> The delay matches Tpowerup (iirc) from the data sheet, which I assume is
> firmware/hardware dependant. Should we provide a knob for that and
> default the sleep to 0ms?

Making  the default 0 and then setting an appropriate time out for 
devices which need it sounds like a good idea to me.

Thanks,
Andrew

> Regards,
> Bjorn