linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to pm8941 lnldo

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]

Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:04:32 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] regulator: qcom_smd: add linear range to
 pm8941 lnldo

On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > On 02/06/16 15:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Why is this better than using a separate set of ops for the driver?
> 
> > Am ok either way, it would be just few more lines for separate set of ops.
> 
> It's more natural to use a separate set of ops, and we can optimise a
> few things if we know the regulator is a fixed voltage one.

In my view a fixed regulator is a thing that when you turn it on you get
a predefined voltage, but iirc we actually need to send of a set-voltage
request for the singly supported voltage on this ldo (which both
implementations do today...).

That's why I suggested Srini to do it this way, but maybe my
interpretation of "fixed" is inaccurate?

Regards,
Bjorn