linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate regulator-allow-set-load dependencies

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: <89901095-07bf-4043-a97f-560606baaaa2@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:49:34 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan+kernel@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate
 regulator-allow-set-load dependencies

On 08/09/2022 16:38, Doug Anderson wrote:
> 
> From looking at the source code of Linux:
> 
> * allow-set-load basically says whether the core regulator framework
> even pays attention when drivers specify how much load they're using.
> 
> * On RPM then if allow-set-load is set then we'll sum up all of the
> load requests from clients and pass it to hardware.
> 
> * On RPMH, if allow-set-load is set then we'll sum up all the load
> requests, translate that to a mode, validate it against the set of
> "allowable" modes, and if it's valid then pass it to hardware.

OK, makes sense.

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof