linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: adding interrupt handling in labibb 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO_48GEYAWBgzeEKx1kjjmLJ+F0chSkRs0EUC86Y2q20kyqjkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:46:52 +0530
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nisha Kumari <nishakumari@...eaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        mark.rutland@....com, david.brown@...aro.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kgunda@...eaurora.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: adding interrupt handling in labibb regulator

Hello Mark,

I am looking to address review comments and push v2 of this series (we
need it for pixel3 and poco phones' mainline efforts): I have a query
on your review comment below:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 22:57, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:30:52PM +0530, Nisha Kumari wrote:
>
> > +static void labibb_sc_err_recovery_work(void *_labibb)
> > +{
> > +     int ret;
> > +     struct qcom_labibb *labibb = (struct qcom_labibb *)_labibb;
> > +
> > +     labibb->ibb_vreg.vreg_enabled = 0;
> > +     labibb->lab_vreg.vreg_enabled = 0;
> > +
> > +     ret = qcom_ibb_regulator_enable(labibb->lab_vreg.rdev);
>
> The driver should *never* enable the regulator itself, it should only do
> this if the core told it to.
>
> > +     /*
> > +      * The SC(short circuit) fault would trigger PBS(Portable Batch
> > +      * System) to disable regulators for protection. This would
> > +      * cause the SC_DETECT status being cleared so that it's not
> > +      * able to get the SC fault status.
> > +      * Check if LAB/IBB regulators are enabled in the driver but
> > +      * disabled in hardware, this means a SC fault had happened
> > +      * and SCP handling is completed by PBS.
> > +      */
>
> Let the core worry about this, the driver should just report the problem
> to the core like all other devices do (and this driver doesn't...).

I (and Bjorn too) looked to find the api that allows us to do this
short circuit reporting and recovery in the core, but couldn't find
anything except REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT which also looks like
it's used only once in the code.

I am sure I'm missing something, maybe you could please help me find it?

Best,
Sumit.