linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] regulator: introduce regulator monitoring constraints

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: <20230420143045.541253-1-bbara93@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:30:45 +0200
From:   Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>
To:     broonie@...nel.org
Cc:     DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com, bbara93@...il.com,
        benjamin.bara@...data.com, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mazziesaccount@...il.com,
        support.opensource@...semi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] regulator: introduce regulator monitoring constraints

Thanks for the feedback!

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> Are these constraints (ie, board specific limits) or are these more
> just properties of the regulator device?  It does feel useful to
> factor out this stuff, but it's not clear to me that these are things
> that should be configured on a per board basis.

These are actually properties of the regulator device. However, the
properties are only "active" if the voltage monitoring is wanted, which
is currently a per-board decision. Not sure if there might be reasons to
not activate it.

> These all sound like things where the regulator device is simply not
> going to support having monitoring enabled when doing the relevant
> actions no matter what situation we're in.  If that's the case we
> should just have the regulator driver set things up.

I think this would be feasible if the driver decides whether monitoring
is on or off (which might be a way to go). I think if the decision is
done per-board, it might simplify things to have the whole "should I
turn the monitor off now?" overhead not duplicated in every driver that
supports monitoring. What do you think?

> For the modes might it be clearer to mark a set of modes as not
> supporting monitoring?  I think that's the intended effect here.

Yes, that's true. I will change that.

Thanks and best regards,
Benjamin