linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] regulator_sync

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: <20200529130917.GM4610@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 14:09:17 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] regulator_sync_state() support

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:06:08PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:

> The simplified explanation of the problem is, for regulators left on by
> the bootloader, we want to keep them on until all the consumers are
> probed. This is because we need to protect consumer-A from turning off a
> shared regulator used by consumer-B. Once consumer-B (and all the other
> consumers come up), they can do it themselves and the regulator
> framework no longer needs to keep the regulator on.

> So, this is not just about module or device probe ordering between
> suppliers and consumers. Even if we get the probe order prefectly right,
> it still won't solve this problem.

This logic seems to be circular - can you be concrete please?

> We can eventually extend this to also cover voltage and other
> properties, but in this patch series I want to get this right for
> "enabled/disabled" first.

I'm quite worried about the extension to voltage changes.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)