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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:30:26 +0100
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To:     Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phh@....me, b.galvani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: rn5t618: fix rc5t619 ldo10 enable

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:13:47 +0100
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote:

> On 2019-11-14 12:54, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:26:33PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> >> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:  
> >   
> >> > 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.  
> > 
> > Or a reviewed-by from someone with access to the datasheet.
> >   
> 
> I guess Pierre-Hugues should have access, as he introduced the part?
> 
> >> 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.  
> > 
> > The URL you provided looked to be for a different part though?
> >   
> >> 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.  
> > 
> > That'd be good.  Or we could fix it by just removing enable/disable
> > control for the second LDO entirely and if someone needs that control
> > they can always re-add it.  
> 
> We use the RN5T567 and I added support for it. Unfortunately I have no
> access to the RN5T618 datasheet so I cannot tell. The RN5T567 has both
> bits in marked reserved, but looking at how it the enable bit are
> distributed otherwise this patch fixes it in the only way it makes
> sense...
> 
Well, the rn5t618 does not have these regulators, either. It is only the
rc5t619.

Regards,
Andreas

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped