linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: mt6358: split ops for buck and linear range LDO regulators

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <169522543613.83620.1878609936860596842.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:57:16 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc:     Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: mt6358: split ops for buck and linear
 range LDO regulators

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:53:34 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> The buck and linear range LDO (VSRAM_*) regulators share one set of ops.
> This set includes support for get/set mode. However this only makes
> sense for buck regulators, not LDOs. The callbacks were not checking
> whether the register offset and/or mask for mode setting was valid or
> not. This ends up making the kernel report "normal" mode operation for
> the LDOs.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] regulator: mt6358: split ops for buck and linear range LDO regulators
      commit: 7e37c851374eca2d1f6128de03195c9f7b4baaf2

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark