linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: do not ignore repeated requests on stepped 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: <9b06c8ac-87a8-49d4-bf0b-89c73ea933ff@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:25:24 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: do not ignore repeated requests on
 stepped regulators

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 01:50:22PM +0200, Romain Gantois wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 May 2025 12:07:05 CEST Mark Brown wrote:

> > No, if there's an issue here we should handle it the first time we set
> > the voltage by doing multiple steps in one set_voltage() call.  Having
> > individual client drivers all having to repeatedly call set_voltage() is
> > obviously not a good API.

> Understood, would it make sense to handle this directly in 
> regulator_set_voltage_unlocked()?  For example by checking for a max_uV_step 
> condition and repeating calls to regulator_do_balance_voltage() until the 
> resulting voltage stabilizes?

Yes, handling it there seems sensible.

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