linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] regulator: add s2dos05 regulator support

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: <dc1482a7-a69e-40ec-83ee-98ecc2e57bf1@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 10:22:33 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@...il.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] regulator: add s2dos05 regulator support

On 02/08/2025 13:22, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote:
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, s2dos05);
> +
> +	rdata = devm_kcalloc(dev, rdev_num, sizeof(*rdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!rdata)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < rdev_num; i++)
> +		rdata[i].name = regulators[i].name;
> +
> +	s2dos05->regmap = iodev->regmap_pmic;
> +	s2dos05->dev = dev;
> +	if (!dev->of_node)
> +		dev->of_node = dev->parent->of_node;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < rdev_num; i++) {
> +		struct regulator_dev *regulator;
> +
> +		config.init_data = rdata[i].init_data;
> +		config.of_node = rdata[i].of_node;
> +		config.dev = dev;
> +		config.driver_data = s2dos05;
> +		regulator = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev,
> +						&regulators[i], &config);
> +		if (IS_ERR(regulator)) {
> +			ret = PTR_ERR(regulator);
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "regulator init failed for %d\n",
> +				i);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;

I do not understand your logic here and I already commented on issues
with 'ret'. If 1st regulator fails, but the last one succeeds, you
return 0. If 1st succeeds, but the last one fails, you return failure
failing the probe.

Why only last regulator is important? I see it is a buck, so maybe there
is a difference, but this should be clearly explained. Or fixed.

Best regards,
Krzysztof