linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: labibb is not used on OnePlus 6/6T

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: <3fcfc5b8-7509-4e4c-a1cd-e973d7e1d091@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 13:48:33 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: david@...t.cz, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Casey Connolly <casey.connolly@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: labibb is not used on
 OnePlus 6/6T

On 11/30/25 1:08 AM, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> 
> The lab and ibb regulators aren't used here. Disable them.
> 
> Removes following warnings:
> qcom-lab-ibb-regulator c440000.spmi:pmic@3:labibb: Failed to create device link (0x180) with supplier c440000.spmi for /soc@...pmi@...0000/pmic@...abibb/lab
> qcom-lab-ibb-regulator c440000.spmi:pmic@3:labibb: Failed to create device link (0x180) with supplier c440000.spmi for /soc@...pmi@...0000/pmic@...abibb/ibb

These are only vaguely related, as there's nothing to be wary about that's
specific to these devices - it's just devlink being grumpy

> Fixes: 288ef8a42612 ("arm64: dts: sdm845: add oneplus6/6t devices")
> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> ---
> I assume this is right approach, as OLEDs on both devices are driven by
> different regulators.
> 
> Question is, if should be labibb nodes enabled by default?

They're onboard. I'd rather keep them predictably parked than left in
whatever (potentially ON) state the bootloader may leave them at

Konrad