linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Don't vote for specific voltage

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191018182205.GA20212@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:22:05 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Don't vote for specific voltage

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:24:02PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> Devices with specific voltage requirements should not request voltage
> from the driver, but instead rely on the system configuration to define
> appropriate voltages for each rail.
> 
> This ensures that PMIC and board variations are accounted for, something
> that the 0.1V range in the hci_qca driver currently tries to address.
> But on the Lenovo Yoga C630 (with wcn3990) vddch0 is 3.1V, which means
> the driver will fail to set the voltage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> index c07c529b0d81..54aafcc69d06 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> @@ -130,8 +130,6 @@ enum qca_speed_type {
>   */
>  struct qca_vreg {
>  	const char *name;
> -	unsigned int min_uV;
> -	unsigned int max_uV;
>  	unsigned int load_uA;
>  };
>  
> @@ -1332,10 +1330,10 @@ static const struct hci_uart_proto qca_proto = {
>  static const struct qca_vreg_data qca_soc_data_wcn3990 = {
>  	.soc_type = QCA_WCN3990,
>  	.vregs = (struct qca_vreg []) {
> -		{ "vddio",   1800000, 1900000,  15000  },
> -		{ "vddxo",   1800000, 1900000,  80000  },
> -		{ "vddrf",   1300000, 1350000,  300000 },
> -		{ "vddch0",  3300000, 3400000,  450000 },
> +		{ "vddio", 15000  },
> +		{ "vddxo", 80000  },
> +		{ "vddrf", 300000 },
> +		{ "vddch0", 450000 },
>  	},
>  	.num_vregs = 4,
>  };
> @@ -1343,10 +1341,10 @@ static const struct qca_vreg_data qca_soc_data_wcn3990 = {
>  static const struct qca_vreg_data qca_soc_data_wcn3998 = {
>  	.soc_type = QCA_WCN3998,
>  	.vregs = (struct qca_vreg []) {
> -		{ "vddio",   1800000, 1900000,  10000  },
> -		{ "vddxo",   1800000, 1900000,  80000  },
> -		{ "vddrf",   1300000, 1352000,  300000 },
> -		{ "vddch0",  3300000, 3300000,  450000 },
> +		{ "vddio", 10000  },
> +		{ "vddxo", 80000  },
> +		{ "vddrf", 300000 },
> +		{ "vddch0", 450000 },
>  	},
>  	.num_vregs = 4,
>  };
> @@ -1386,13 +1384,6 @@ static int qca_power_off(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>  static int qca_enable_regulator(struct qca_vreg vregs,
>  				struct regulator *regulator)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> -
> -	ret = regulator_set_voltage(regulator, vregs.min_uV,
> -				    vregs.max_uV);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
>  	return regulator_enable(regulator);
>  
>  }
> @@ -1401,7 +1392,6 @@ static void qca_disable_regulator(struct qca_vreg vregs,
>  				  struct regulator *regulator)
>  {
>  	regulator_disable(regulator);
> -	regulator_set_voltage(regulator, 0, vregs.max_uV);
>  
>  }

This was brought up multiple times during the initial review, but
wasn't addressed.

Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>