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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:20:01 -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: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:32 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> 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 > > Hello Kevin, > > Since cpufreq and cci devfreq might share the same sram regulator in > MediaTek SoC, it is no longer exclusive as you mentioned. > > The reason to use regulator_get_optional is we hope regulator framework > can return error for error handling rather than a dummy handler from > regulator_get api. > > I will add this to commit message in next version. OK, sounds good. Thanks, Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists