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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:19:15 +0000
From:   <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To:     <broonie@...nel.org>
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 15.01.2019 00:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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? 

Yes, that was the idea.

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> OK, that does make sense
> to me.  
>