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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20160602162410.GO2282@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:24:10 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.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, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:04:32AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 02 Jun 08:50 PDT 2016, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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?

If it only supports one voltage then shouldn't we just tell it that
voltage once at startup?  Doing a call in the probe routine would be
fine, the framework doesn't need to know about that really.

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