linux-kernel - Re: Applied "regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of GPIO number" to the regulator tree

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: <a67567d7-9081-a6e2-b1f5-a3bc07970d35@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:23:04 +0100
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: Applied
 "regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of GPIO number" to the regulator
 tree

Hi Charles,

On 2018-11-20 18:03, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 04:57:16PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>> On 20/11/18 16:34, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>> On 2018-11-20 17:16, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>>>> On 20/11/18 15:56, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-11-20 16:36, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:32:15PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:58:59PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-11-20 15:47, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:43:32PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-17 18:41, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] regulator: wm8994: Pass descriptor instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> GPIO number
>>>>>>>>>> This patch causes following kernel warning on Samsung Exynos4412
>>>>>>>>>> based
>> Sounds like all is ok and working as expected.
>> If this is causing you a problem you'll need to provide more explanation of
>> what problem you have so we can understand.
>>
> The problem looks to be that we shouldn't be using devm for the
> GPIO allocation because the device we want to allocate the memory
> against differs from the one that holds the OF node. Apologies
> for missing that in review of the patch.

No problem. That's why we have linux-next. This way such issues can be
noticed before they cause any real problems.

> I have sent a fix that hopefully should resolve the issue, if you
> could test it on you system that would be awesome.

I will check in a minute.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland