linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc/tegra: regulators: Add regulators coupler for Tegra30

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, 2 Aug 2019 17:39:23 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc/tegra: regulators: Add regulators coupler for
 Tegra30

02.08.2019 17:05, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:18:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Add regulators coupler for Tegra30 SoCs that performs voltage balancing
>> of a coupled regulators and thus provides voltage scaling functionality.
>>
>> There are 2 coupled regulators on all Tegra30 SoCs: CORE and CPU. The
>> coupled regulator voltages shall be in a range of 300mV from each other
>> and CORE voltage shall be higher than the CPU by N mV, where N depends
>> on the CPU voltage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/soc/tegra/Kconfig              |   4 +
>>  drivers/soc/tegra/Makefile             |   1 +
>>  drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c | 316 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 321 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c
>>
> ...
> 
>> +
>> +static int tegra30_core_cpu_limit(int cpu_uV)
>> +{
>> +	if (cpu_uV < 800000)
>> +		return 950000;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_uV < 900000)
>> +		return 1000000;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1000000)
>> +		return 1100000;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1100000)
>> +		return 1200000;
>> +
>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1250000) {
>> +		switch (tegra_sku_info.cpu_speedo_id) {
>> +		case 0 ... 1:
> Aren't we supposed to add /* fall through */ here now?

There is no compiler warning if there is nothing in-between of the
case-switches, so annotation isn't really necessary here. Of course it
is possible to add an explicit annotation just to make clear the
fall-through intention.

>> +		case 4:
>> +		case 7 ... 8:
>> +			return 1200000;
>> +
>> +		default:
>> +			return 1300000;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
> 
> Other than that, this looks ok to me.

Awesome, thank you very much! Explicit ACK will be appreciated as well.