linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: core: add helper to check if regulator is disabled in suspend

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:53:11 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com
Cc:     Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, pavel@....cz,
        len.brown@...el.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: core: add helper to check if regulator
 is disabled in suspend

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:08:19PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 11.01.2019 14:39, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Like I say I'm working offline so I can't check the links but it sounds
> > like you're saying that the existing suspend mode configuration features
> > are enough for your systems? 

> Yes, if we rely on the fact that core's regulator device tree bindings for
> suspend-to-mem/suspend-to-standby were filled correctly.

> The function I added here was to double check that core's regulator will be
> off in suspend/standby based on what was parsed from DT.

Ah, so it's being used as a consistency check?  OK, that does make sense
to me.  

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)