linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] dt-bindings: arm: add support for SCMI Regulators

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:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:06:07 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        lukasz.luba@....com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, satyakim@....qualcomm.com,
        etienne.carriere@...aro.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] dt-bindings: arm: add support for SCMI Regulators

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:55:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

> I'm a bit worried that now we're changing CPUs (at least?) from clocks 
> to 'performance domains' while at the same time here we're adding 
> low level, virtual regulators. Are we going to end up wanting something 
> more abstract here too?

My understanding is that this is aimed at systems which have done the
more abstract thing where regulators just aren't visible at all to the
kernel but then find that they actually need to control some of the
regulators explicitly for things like MMC so need a mechanism for the
firmware to expose select regulators.

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