linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] regulator: pf1550: add support for regulator

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: <aEBcx0ySywwa4BaZ@fedora>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 10:48:39 -0400
From: Samuel Kayode <samuel.kayode@...oirfairelinux.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...nel.org>,
	Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...ux.com>, Robin Gong <b38343@...escale.com>,
	Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] regulator: pf1550: add support for regulator

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 03:25:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:03:52AM -0400, Samuel Kayode wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 12:35:21PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > +	switch (irq_type) {
> > > > +	case PF1550_PMIC_IRQ_SW1_LS:
> > > > +		event = REGULATOR_EVENT_OVER_CURRENT;
> > > > +	case PF1550_PMIC_IRQ_SW1_HS:
> > > > +		event = REGULATOR_EVENT_OVER_CURRENT;
> > > > +	case PF1550_PMIC_IRQ_LDO1_FAULT:
> > > > +		event = REGULATOR_EVENT_OVER_CURRENT;
> 
> > > You appear to be flagging all these events as over current events which
> > > doesn't seem entirely plausible.
> 
> > It does seem like it but the manual describes these interrupts as "current limit
> > interrupt". The interrupts ending in _LS are "low-side current limit interrupt",
> > _HS are "high-side current limit interrupt" and _FAULT are "current limit fault
> > interrupt".
> 
> That at least needs some comments I think, and for the _LS while it's
> hard to parse what "low side" means my guess would be that it's a
> warning to match the other interrupt being the actual error.

Yes, It certainly does need comments. The high-side sensing is more accurate
and can detect load shorts, so a warning for low side would be more appropriate.

Thanks,
Sam