linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,rpmh: Allow regulator-off-on-delay-us

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: <fa760b2f-4b8c-46d5-90b9-2ad9e69ebf04@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 12:05:38 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kamal Wadhwa <kamal.wadhwa@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Saikiran <bjsaikiran@...il.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com, andersson@...nel.org,
        konradybcio@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,rpmh: Allow
 regulator-off-on-delay-us

On 1/29/26 7:15 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:49:42AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:32:10AM +0530, Saikiran wrote:
> 
>>> This property is required for platforms where specific rails (like camera
>>> LDOs) rely on passive discharge and need a mandatory off-time constraint
>>> enforced by the regulator core.
> 
>> Does enforcing some off time on all your regulators cause some negative 
>> impact on the ones that don't need it? If turning them back on is 
>> performance critical maybe don't turn them off in the first place.
> 
> You might see something like unexpectedly long delays resuming a runtime
> suspended device.  Generally I'd say that if the delays needed for
> something like this are long enough for anyone to notice they're long
> enough to be disruptive.
> 
> Having said that I believe an active discharge feature in the hardware
> has been identified and is being investigated, that's generally a vastly
> better solution all round so hopefully this change isn't needed at all.

+Jishnu, Kamal

Could you please confirm whether our hw can do that?

Konrad