linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] regulator: Add labibb driver

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, 18 Jun 2019 11:59:35 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        david.brown@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kgunda@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] regulator: Add labibb driver

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:51:18AM +0530, Nisha Kumari wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 10:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > +	labibb->lab_vreg.vreg_enabled = 1;
> > What function does this serve?  It never seems to be read.
> Its used in next patch for handling interrupts

It'd be better to move this code into the patch where it's used then.

> > > +		if (val & IBB_STATUS1_VREG_OK_BIT) {
> > > +			labibb->ibb_vreg.vreg_enabled = 1;
> > > +			return 0;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}

> > This is doing more than the other regulator was but it's not clear why -
> > is it just that the delays are different for the two regulators?

> LAB regulator comes up in first try, so we did not added much delay in that
> like IBB. Planning to make equal no of retries for both in next patch so
> that code can be reused.

Is there actually a need for polling at all?

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