linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled regulators in 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: <20191008180750.GT4382@sirena.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 19:07:50 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled
 regulators in regulator_enable()

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:00:29PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 08.10.2019 20:17, Mark Brown пишет:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:05:03PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

> >> Maybe it won't hurt to disallow a non always-on regulators to be coupled
> >> until there will be a real user for that case.

> > I thought that coupling with the CPU core and main SoC power regulators
> > was one of the main use cases for this feature?

> Properly handling case of a disabled coupled regulator certainly will be
> useful, but looks like there are no real users for that feature right
> now and thus no real testing is done.

Right, sorry - I missed the double negative there.

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