linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator abstraction

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D9W0FJ6MKPTE.1NI5HK0TJRHCM@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 18:05:11 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Miguel Ojeda"
 <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun Feng"
 <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin"
 <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, "Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, "Boris Brezillon"
 <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, "Sebastian Reichel"
 <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
 abstraction

On Wed May 14, 2025 at 5:50 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:38:40PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Wed May 14, 2025 at 4:40 PM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>> > By the way, IIUC, regulator_disable() does not disable a regulator necessarily.
>> > It just tells the system that you don't care about it being enabled anymore. It can
>> > still remain on if there are other users.
>
>> Hmm, so a `struct regulator` might already be enabled and calling
>> `regulator_enable` doesn't do anything?
>
> It takes a reference to the regulator.  This may or may not result in a
> change in an underlying physical regulator.

Gotcha. So calling `regulator_enable` twice on the same regulator is
fine?

If that is the case -- and after re-reading the functions exposed on
both types `EnabledRegulator` and `Regulator` -- I am confused why we
even need two different type states? Both expose the same functions
(except `enable` and `disable`) and I don't otherwise see the purpose of
having two types.

---
Cheers,
Benno