linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125-seine: Provide regulators to SDHCI 1

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, 23 Dec 2022 14:20:42 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
Cc:     phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
        Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125-seine: Provide regulators to
 SDHCI 1



On 23.12.2022 14:08, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-23 13:00:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.12.2022 21:36, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> While SDHCI 1 appears to work out of the box, we cannot rely on the
>>> bootloader-enabled regulators nor expect them to remain enabled (e.g.
>>> when finally dropping pd_ignore_unused).
>>
>> Unrelated, unused-yet-enabled (as far as Linux is concerned, anyway,
>> it doesn't know the state of smd rpm regulators unless you add
>> regulator-boot-on) regulators get swept by "regulator cleanup".
> 
> That's exactly the point made here: at least this way Linux knows that
> these regulators should remain enabled.  Even if it doesn't know about
> many others and would fall flat on its face regardless when disabling
> others as part of regulator cleanup.
> 
> Unless you meant something different?
I meant that regulators are not handled by pd_ignore_unused, but rather
by a similar mechanism.

Konrad
> 
> - Marijn