linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v4 02/13] regulator: add getter for active monitors

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: <c7ba005c-27ca-4787-a3ba-eda0fb91b584@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:37:44 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        support.opensource@...semi.com,
        DLG-Adam.Ward.opensource@...renesas.com,
        Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@...data.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 02/13] regulator: add getter for active monitors

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:43:49PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 6/20/23 23:02, Benjamin Bara wrote:

> > + * @get_active_protections: Get all enabled monitors of a regulator. OR'ed val
> > + *	of REGULATOR_MONITOR_*.

> I think it wouldn't hurt to have doc stating in which case populating this
> call-back is needed? I haven't read rest of the patches yet but I guess this
> callback is going to be used internally by the regulator core and maybe it
> is not obvious for driver author that this is needed by core to be able to
> support automatic protection handling.

I think this is true for pretty much all callbacks - broadly it's just
the case that if the hardware has a feature the best practice is that
the driver should implement all relevant operations.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)