linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] drivers: regulator: qcom: add PMS405 SPMI regulator

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: <a89763cb-5d50-0927-7912-6ccf38ae1d66@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 10:35:46 +0200
From:   Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.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 5/6/19 06:38, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 10:29:42AM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
>> On 5/3/19 08:26, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:30:48PM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> So how do we move this forward?
> 
>> To sum up his regulator needs to be able to bypass accesses to
>> SPMI_COMMON_REG_VOLTAGE_RANGE and provide the range in some other way
>> hence the change below
> 
>> I can't find a simpler solution than this since the function does now
>> what is supposed to do for all the regulator types supported in the driver
> 
> The assumption that you need to have this regulator use functions that
> use and provide ranges is the very thing I'm trying to get you to
> change.  It looks like these regulators just need their own
> set_voltage_sel() and get_voltage_sel() then they can use the standard
> linear range mapping functions (and pobably the set_voltage_time_sel()
> needs fixing anyway for all the other regulators).

Right, and I understand what you are asking, is just that I completely
disagree with you. But moving on.

Would you accept if I wrote a separate driver specific to pms405 or do
you want me to integrate in qcom-spmi_regulator.c?

I am asking because none of the ops will use the common functions (I
wont be reusing much code from this qcom-spmi_regulator.c file)

> 
> There's already some conditional code in the probe function for handling
> different operations for the over current protection and SAW stuff, this
> looks like it should fit in reasonably well.  Usually this would be even
> easier as probe functions are just data driven but for some reason more
> than usual of this driver's data initializaiton is done dynamically.
>