linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] regulator: core: Add over current changed event

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: <CAKXjFTNtcdTQJ_Gee87NTv3_RZscVjg4UWLkLVCZFE-TrXfsxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:41:44 +0200
From:   Axel Haslam <ahaslam@...libre.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] regulator: core: Add over current changed event

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:00:52PM +0200, ahaslam@...libre.com wrote:
>> From: Axel Haslam <ahaslam@...libre.com>
>>
>> Regulator consumers may be interested to know when the
>> over current condition is over.
>>
>> Add an over currerent "changed" event. The registered useres
>> for this event can then check the over current flag to know
>> the status of the over current condition.
>
> Would a more general event for error conditions work as well?  Thinking
> about this I'm unclear how interested consumers are going to be in the
> specific error condition as opposed to the fact that the regulator ran
> into trouble, and I can imagine that some regulators will report the
> same root cause differently - another regulator might detect an
> excessive current draw by seeing the output voltage collapse and the
> regulator go out of regulation for example.

Sorry if i misunderstood, but if we make the name generic,
i think it might change a bit the definition of the flags,
The flags will not represent events, but states.

i think today each time an event occurs a notification is sent with the
corresponding flag(s) set.

if we use a generic name, It means that each time the regulator driver
sends an event, it should check which "other" error conditons tied to the
generic flag are present and set the corresponding bits too.

illustrative example:
today over current and over temp are two different events
we send one notification for each with only the bits tied to the
event that is happening set.

if we add a generic error flag, it would mean that if over current happens
and we set the generic error flag, we would also have to check
if over temp is present to set or not that flag. similarly, when the over
temp event happens the regulator driver would have to check if over
current is present too.

Regards
Axel.

Regards
Axel.