linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable

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: <20191113202633.66a91d96@aktux>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:26:33 +0100
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phh@....me,
        b.galvani@...il.com, stefan@...er.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable

Hi,

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:32:11 +0000
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 07:26:43PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > LDO9 and LDO10 were listed with the same enable bits.
> > That looks insane and there are no provisions in the code for handling such
> > a special case. Also other out-of-tree drivers use a separate bit to
> > enable it.  
> 
> This definitely looks like a bug but without a datasheet or testing it's
> worrying guessing at the register bit to use for the enable for the
> second LDO...

I am hoping for a Tested-By: from the one who has submitted the patch
for the regulator. 

Well, it is not just guessing, it is there in the url I referenced. But
I would of course prefer a better source. At first I wanted to spread
my findings.
I am not pushing anyone to accept it without Tested-By/Reviewed-Bys.
What is a good way to avoid people bumping into this bug?
Maybe I can find the right C on the board to check.

Regards,
Andreas