linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 10/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Make sram regulator optional

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, 08 Apr 2022 13:32:44 -0700
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     matthias.bgg@...il.com, jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com,
        roger.lu@...iatek.com, hsinyi@...gle.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 10/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Make sram regulator optional

Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> writes:

> From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
>
> For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram regulator
> is shared between CPU and CCI.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>

nit: missing your sign-off.

> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases. */
> -	info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram");
> +	info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram");

The changelog says that this regulator may be shared with CCI, so I
understand it's no longer exclusive.  But here you make it optional,
which should be explained in the changelog.  If it's not actually
optional, then it should just be normal "get".

Kevin