linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects constraints

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]

Message-ID: <1492116375.17723.15.camel@nxp.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:46:15 +0300
From:   Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
        Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
        Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        "Octavian Purdila" <octavian.purdila@....com>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] regulator: core: Check enabling bypass respects
 constraints

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 12:22 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:51:52PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:

> > It currently seems to work how I expect but from your statement it's
> > not clear if it's entirely intentional.

> The current behaviour of bypassed regulators is intentional.

I did not mean to imply that there is something wrong with bypassed
regulators. I just wanted more information about how regulators (non-
bypassed) pick their voltage when consumers allow a range.

After some more reading through the code it seems that the driver
itself receives the range (either through set_voltage or map_voltage)
and gets to make the choice.

So it seems fine for my concerns, sorry to bother you.

--
Regards,
Leonard