linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c6919357-6c3b-1f69-4d51-2ed2ddd2c942@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:34:02 -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, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

On 07/12/2018 09:54 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:44:14PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
>> On 07/02/2018 03:28 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:46:14PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
>>>> +static unsigned int rpmh_regulator_pmic4_ldo_of_map_mode(unsigned int mode)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	static const unsigned int of_mode_map[RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_COUNT] = {
>>>> +		[RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_RET]  = REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY,
>>>> +		[RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_LPM]  = REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE,
>>>> +		[RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_AUTO] = REGULATOR_MODE_INVALID,
>>>> +		[RPMH_REGULATOR_MODE_HPM]  = REGULATOR_MODE_FAST,
>>>> +	};
> 
>>> Same here, based on that it looks like auto mode is a good map for
>>> normal.
> 
>> LDO type regulators physically do not support AUTO mode.  That is why I
>> specified REGULATOR_MODE_INVALID in the mapping.
> 
> The other question here is why this is even in the table if it's not
> valid (I'm not seeing a need for the MODE_COUNT define)?

I thought that having a table would be more concise and easier to follow.
I can change this to a switch case statement.

Take care,
David

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