linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] hwmon: (pmbus) Add regulator supply into macro

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: <abfcdd863bb0166a6828c5742bf651eb9409c31b.camel@sylv.io>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:40:47 +0100
From:   sylv <sylv@...v.io>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] hwmon: (pmbus) Add regulator supply into macro

On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 09:36 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/17/22 02:23, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
> > Add optional regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This
> > makes it
> 
> The code doesn't look optional to me. What exactly is optional ?

I mean, it is optional to add a supply. It should not cause errors if
you don't. I should probably reword this, too.

> 
> > possible to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will
> > only
> > cause the following debug output:
> > 
> > ```
> > Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
> > ```
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@...v.io>
> > ---
> >   drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 1 +
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > index e0aa8aa46d8c..38f049d68d32 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > @@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ extern const struct regulator_ops
> > pmbus_regulator_ops;
> >   #define PMBUS_REGULATOR(_name, _id)                           \
> >         [_id] = {                                               \
> >                 .name = (_name # _id),                          \
> > +               .supply_name = "vin",                           \
> >                 .id = (_id),                                    \
> >                 .of_match = of_match_ptr(_name # _id),          \
> >                 .regulators_node = of_match_ptr("regulators"),  \
> 
> That seems to be quite far reaching. How does this affect / change
> behavior
> of existing systems which so far did not expect supply_name to be set
> ?
> 
> Guenter