linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Add coupled regulators mechanism

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: <c6f43013-3d2e-afbc-9be8-2e07f58fda98@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:22:47 +0100
From:   Maciej Purski <m.purski@...sung.com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Add coupled regulators mechanism

On 03/09/2018 04:58 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> [180309 12:43]:
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:22:02PM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to kindly ask Fabio Estevam and Tony Lindgren to test the patch
>>> series on their boards.
> 
> I gave it a quick try and this set still causes at least mmc0
> to fail for me.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony
> 
> 

Thanks. Here's a small patch, which adds some debugs. Maybe they will reveal,
where the problem is.

Best Regards,
Maciej Purski

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index f1f11cf..0e80ba5 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2280,7 +2280,6 @@ int regulator_enable(struct regulator *regulator)
  {
  	struct regulator_dev *rdev = regulator->rdev;
  	int ret = 0;
-	int ret2;

  	if (rdev->coupling_desc.n_resolved != rdev->coupling_desc.n_coupled) {
  		rdev_err(rdev, "not all coupled regulators registered\n");
@@ -2298,15 +2297,9 @@ int regulator_enable(struct regulator *regulator)

  	regulator_lock_dependent(rdev);
  	ret = _regulator_enable(rdev);
-	ret2 = regulator_balance_voltage(rdev, PM_SUSPEND_ON);
+	regulator_balance_voltage(rdev, PM_SUSPEND_ON);
  	regulator_unlock_dependent(rdev);

-	if (ret2 != 0) {
-		rdev_err(rdev,
-			"balancing failed when trying to enable regulator: %d",
-			ret2);
-	}
-
  	if (ret != 0 && rdev->supply)
  		regulator_disable(rdev->supply);

@@ -3149,7 +3142,7 @@ static int regulator_set_voltage_rdev(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
  		ret = regulator_set_voltage_unlocked(rdev->supply,
  				best_supply_uV, INT_MAX, state);
  		if (ret)
-			dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to decrease supply voltage: %d\n",
+			dev_warn(&rdev->dev, "Failed to decrease supply voltage: %d\n",
  					ret);
  		/* No need to fail here */
  		ret = 0;
@@ -3332,11 +3325,8 @@ static int regulator_balance_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
  		ret = regulator_set_voltage_rdev(best_rdev, best_uV,
  						 best_uV, state);

-		if (ret < 0) {
-			rdev_err(rdev,
-				"Failed to set voltage with error: %d", ret);
+		if (ret < 0)
  			goto out;
-		}
  	}

  out: