linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call regulator_set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <037cd5e2-0d3b-c20f-a444-99087b86706b@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:58:11 -0700
From:   David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: core: If consumers don't call
 regulator_set_load() assume max

Hello Doug,

On 08/16/2018 01:07 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> I'll work on either adding more regulator_set_load() calls to clients
> or perhaps disabling the "regulator-allow-set-load" for a bunch of
> rails.  David: presumably if we have a rail that we never need to be
> on-and-in-low-power-mode can just be left in high power mode all the
> time?  There should be no advantage of being in low power mode for a
> regulator that is off, right?

Generally speaking, yes, that is true on both points.  The only caveat is
that there could be a minor power penalty if APPS votes for OFF+HPM and a
non-HLOS processor votes for ON+LPM for the same regulator.  This would
lead to an aggregated state of ON+HPM when only ON+LPM is really needed.

Take care,
David

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