linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

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: <f98416ac-230c-0362-ed50-a7f92ff283d7@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:04:56 -0700
From:   David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

>>> I think that's probably only OK if we have a specific error code for the
>>> regulator being limited in this way otherwise our error handling for I/O
>>> problems involves us trying to reconfigure supplies which seems like it
>>> would be risky.  

>> Would you be ok with -EAGAIN being used for this purpose?

> Using -EAGAIN for "I can't ever read the configuration from this
> regulator" doesn't seem right - it's not like any number of retries
> will ever manage to read the value back.

In this case, the _regulator_get_voltage() call can succeed, but only
after a voltage is explicitly requested from the framework side.  The
intention here would then be to call _regulator_do_set_voltage() with the
constraint min_uV to max_uV range.  After that, subsequent
_regulator_get_voltage() calls will be successful.

Here is the general idea:

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 65f9b7c..e61983d 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -910,6 +910,19 @@ static int machine_constraints_voltage(struct
regulator_dev *rdev,
 	    rdev->constraints->min_uV && rdev->constraints->max_uV) {
 		int target_min, target_max;
 		int current_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
+		if (current_uV == -EAGAIN) {
+			/*
+			 * Regulator voltage cannot be read until after
+			 * configuration; try setting constraint range.
+			 */
+			rdev_info(rdev, "Setting %d-%duV\n",
+				  rdev->constraints->min_uV,
+				  rdev->constraints->max_uV);
+			_regulator_do_set_voltage(rdev,
+						  rdev->constraints->min_uV,
+						  rdev->constraints->max_uV);
+			current_uV = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev);
+		}
 		if (current_uV < 0) {
 			rdev_err(rdev,
 				 "failed to get the current voltage(%d)\n",

Do you still have reservations about using -EAGAIN for this purpose?  If
so, which error code would you suggest using?

Thanks,
David

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project