linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] 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]

Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 17:11:54 -0700
From:   David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, dianders@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

Hello Mark,

On 05/30/2018 09:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:43:16PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
>> This patch series adds a driver and device tree binding documentation for
>> PMIC regulator control via Resource Power Manager-hardened (RPMh) on some
>> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SoCs such as SDM845.  RPMh is a hardware block
> 
> So, this is a very big driver and obviously it being RPM based it
> doesn't look like other regulators which is causing problems, especially
> when coupled with the desire to implement a bunch of more exotic
> features like the mode setting.  I think this review is going to go a
> lot more smoothly if you split this up into a base driver with just
> normal, standard stuff that doesn't add too many custom properties or
> unusual ways of working and then a series of patches on top of that
> adding things like the mode adjustment and interaction with other RPM
> clients.
> 
> We've got other RPM based regulators in tree already so the baseline bit
> shouldn't be too hard, that'll make the rest of the patches much smaller
> and easier to review and mean that the bits that are simpler and easier
> to cope with don't need to be reposted.

I'll split up the patches so that reviewing is easier.  For the base
patch, would you prefer that I remove *all* mode support (handled by
generic regulator framework DT properties) or only remove the special
purpose drms mode handling support (i.e. qcom,regulator-drms-modes and
qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps)?

Thanks,
David

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