linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/6] regulator: core: Introduce API for machine-specific regulators coupling

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: <674a93f6-0d35-c558-72ed-45a66f8c8c3e@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 16:05:32 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/6] regulator: core: Introduce API for
 machine-specific regulators coupling

08.05.2019 10:55, Mark Brown пишет:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 08:59:34PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Right now regulator core supports only one type of regulators coupling,
>> the "voltage max-spread" which keeps voltages of coupled regulators in a
>> given range. A more sophisticated coupling may be required in practice,
>> one example is the NVIDIA Tegra SoC's which besides the max-spreading
>> have other restrictions that must be adhered. Introduce API that allow
>> platforms to provide their own custom coupling algorithms.
> 
> This is really concerning since it's jumping straight to open coding the
> algorithm in platform specific code which isn't great, especially since
> that platform specific code is now going to have to handle all possible
> board specific restrictions that might be found on that platform.  Why
> is it not possible to express the rules that exist in a more general
> fashion which can be encoded in drivers?  I'm not thrilled about later
> patches that export core functionality for platform specific use either.
> 

Indeed, it's absolutely not the part of the idea that platform specific
code will be handling board specifics as well. I just wanted to KISS for
the first draft and will change that for a more generic solution in the
next revision.