linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator bindings

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:   Wed, 30 May 2018 11:37:20 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] regulator: dt-bindings: add QCOM RPMh regulator
 bindings

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:23:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:

> > +                       qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps = <10000 1000000>;

> Things look pretty good to me now.  I'm still hesitant about the whole
> need to list the modes twice (once using the unordered
> "regulator-allowed-modes" and once to match up against the ordered
> "qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps").  I'm also still of the opinion that
> the whole "drms-mode-max-microamps" ought to be a standard property
> (not a qcom specific one) and handled in the regulator core.

I'm confused as to why we are specifying the maximum current the device
can deliver in a given mode in the DT - surely that's a fixed property
of the hardware?

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