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:   Fri, 3 May 2019 15:26:26 +0900
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, vinod.koul@...aro.org,
        niklas.cassel@...aro.org, khasim.mohammed@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drivers: regulator: qcom: add PMS405 SPMI regulator

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:30:48PM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> On 5/2/19 04:33, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I'm not sure I follow here, sorry - I can see that the driver needs a
> > custom get/set selector operation but shouldn't it be able to use the
> > standard list and map operations for linear ranges?

> I agree it should, but unfortunately that is not the case; when I first
> posted the patch I was concerned that for a regulator to be supported by
> this driver it should obey to the driver's internals (ie: comply with
> all of the spmi_common_regulator_registers definitions).

That's not a requirement that I'd particularly expect - it's not unusual
for devices to have multiple different styles of regulators in a single
chip (eg, DCDCs often have quite different register maps to LDOs).

> However, since there was just a single range to support, the
> modifications I had to do to support this SPMI regulator were minimal -
> hence why I opted for the changes under discussion instead of writing a
> new driver (which IMO it is an overkill).

> what do you think?

It seems a bit of a jump to add a new driver - it's just another
descriptor and ops structure isn't it?  Though as ever with the Qualcomm
stuff this driver is pretty baroque which doesn't entirely help though I
think it's just another regulator type which there's already some
handling for.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists