linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/16] dt-bindings: regulator: Document ROHM BD71282 regulator bindings

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: <ad8bb62352137b7142fce12e3d78f5c60ebc16a4.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:07:28 +0000
From:   "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "dmurphy@...com" <dmurphy@...com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mchehab+samsung@...nel.org" <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "jacek.anaszewski@...il.com" <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        "a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "hofrat@...dl.org" <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        "wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "phil.edworthy@...esas.com" <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/16] dt-bindings: regulator: Document ROHM BD71282
 regulator bindings


On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 12:45 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:41:47PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> 
> > The thing is that if we do initial setting of voltages (based on
> > binding data) we can set the voltages to registers before we switch
> > to
> > that run-level. If we don't do initial setting then we will only do
> > setting when voltage change is actually requested - which may be
> > too
> > late. (I actually heard somewhere that there is 40 uS time limit -
> > but
> > I don't see how this is counted. Starting from what? - and I don't
> > see
> > how this is guaranteed even with GPIO if interrupts are to be
> > served).
> 
> I suspect that if that limit is a real thing it's from some runtime
> performance metrics where people are doing benchmarking to verify
> that
> everything is working fine rather than an absolute thing that is a
> basic
> requirement for operation.
> 
> > So, I am again wondering if I should just upstream the basic
> > control
> > with I2C for SoCs which do not require fast DVS voltage changes and
> > perhaps maintain/provide own set of patches with additional
> > interface
> > for run-level control for those customers who require it... Sorry
> > for
> > being such a difficult guy. Decision making seems to not be my
> > strong
> > point :/
> 
> Yes, definitely submit the basic stuff separately - the GPIO changes
> can
> be reviewed as a separate, incremental patch.

Right. That was rationale behind splitting the regulator support in two
patches. I was just unsure if I should add all the DT bindings already
here. Well, I guess I will drop the run-level ones for now. Adding new
bindings later might not be as hard as removing them. Thanks for
support! Discussing this with someone is definitely helpful :)

Br,
	Matti