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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3cc6b317-5fab-ee46-cd27-d3a71b436dfa@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:29:43 +0200
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...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()

Hi Mark,

On 10.10.2019 15:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 09.10.2019 16:13, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> We should revert the enable call, it shouldn't be required, and ideally
>>> the default balancer could be updated to only make configuration changes
>>> if they're actually required which would help avoid triggering any such
>>> things in future if we don't absolutely have to.
>> Okay, Then in case of regulator core - do you accept the initial patch
>> as it indeed forces the default balancer to avoid unnecessary changes,
>> or do you want me to rewrite it to assume min_uV = current_uV for the
>> already enabled regulators during the initial balancing, like suggested
>> by Dmitry?
> Neither, I'm suggesting you make the change above.

I've posted a revert:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/17/267

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland