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

Message-ID: <9314db6c-9498-579d-430c-5a2992fe513e@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:56:55 +0100
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...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 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
>>>>> Trats2 board:
>>>>>
>>>>> wm8994 4-001a: Failed to get supply 'DBVDD1': -517
>>>>> wm8994 4-001a: Failed to get supplies: -517
>> This is really weird, because the error in your log relates to
>> DBVDD1 which is an independent regulator supplied by a separate
>> regulator. I am really having some difficulty seeing how the
>> patch interfers. It is definitely that patch which causes the
>> issue, like you revert it and things work again?
> Wait does the board still boot just you have an extra probe defer
> now? Or does it actually fail?

The board boots fine. The only new thing is the mentioned warning, which
I would

like to have fixed.


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