linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC1x8s102

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:   Sat, 20 May 2017 17:26:30 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC1x8s102

On 19/05/17 17:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:01:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
>> Somewhat of a pain to basically use a random value as the default going
>> forward.  Presumably this isn't the first ever ACPI table to need to
>> tell use about a reference voltage...
> 
>> Mark, seen anything similar?
> 
>> I see https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt suggests
>> that mapping to regulators isn't expected to ever happen...
> 
> There's multiple different camps trying to use ACPI for very different
> things.  There's the server people on both x86 and ARM who want to use
> standard ACPI and nothing but with the power management all hidden in
> the AML but there's also the embedded x86 people who have the same needs
> as DT platforms but find themselves unable to use DT so have to map all
> the DT support into ACPI.  This has been accepted in areas that clearly
> don't overlap with areas where there are existing ACPI bindings for
> things, power management is one area where there are clear bindings
> though.
Thanks Mark,

Just to clarify what do we do here, where a regulator is providing a
reference voltage and there appears to be no information on it in ACPI?

Right now we are just going with a fixed value that matches the board
someone has, but that's hardly sustainable.

Jonathan
>