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  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, 21 Dec 2017 13:34:56 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <>
To:     Maciej Purski <>
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Marek Szyprowski <>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] regulator: core: Balance coupled regulators

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:29:14PM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote:

> Now I can understand your point, but I still have doubts what is the
> advantage of that solution. For non-coupled regulators we end up with
> useless data structure - coupling_desc. That also might cause some
> confusion. We expect coupled regulators to be a very rare case, so in most
> of the cases we will have a pointless structure in reg_dev with a pointer to
> itself. Maybe you suggest that coupling_desc should contain something
> different?

It's precisely because it's such an unusual case that I'm looking to see
it as part of the common path - if it's not then it seems very liklely
that it'll get broken down the line and nobody will notice because the
code is never run.  Yes, it's unusual but having the unusual thing be a
bit more visible than it is used seems better than having support there
that gets broken.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists