[U-Boot] [PATCH] power: regulator: Add limits checking while setting voltage and current
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com --- drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev); + struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata; + + uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev); + if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV) + return -EINVAL;
if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS; @@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev); + struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata; + + uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev); + if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA) + return -EINVAL;
if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL;if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;
@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL;if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;
Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag); - int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
Best regards,
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:26 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag);
- int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
I do not know cmd_regulator is the right place to check for min_uV and max_uV. dm_regulator_uclass_platdata has both the limits and this i feel is a perfectly valid check in generic place else we would be again checking for the same condition in every possible regulator specific drivers.
As far as the force option is concerned that i believe is more for testing and like you said can be implemented by setting a flag.
Just take a simple case of say a driver like mmc which unknowingly requests a wrong voltage and the base driver has no check against min and max voltages and assuming the regulator driver goes ahead and sets a very high voltage. That can be catastrophic right?
Best regards,
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:38 PM, Keerthy wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:26 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag);
- int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
I personally do not like setting an extra flag everywhere just because we want to support force option.
I would rather have 2 functions like:
int (*force_set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV); int (*force_set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA);
Where we can set the value ignoring the limits. But again that must be used with at most caution as setting higher voltages might end up damaging the device.
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
I do not know cmd_regulator is the right place to check for min_uV and max_uV. dm_regulator_uclass_platdata has both the limits and this i feel is a perfectly valid check in generic place else we would be again checking for the same condition in every possible regulator specific drivers.
As far as the force option is concerned that i believe is more for testing and like you said can be implemented by setting a flag.
Just take a simple case of say a driver like mmc which unknowingly requests a wrong voltage and the base driver has no check against min and max voltages and assuming the regulator driver goes ahead and sets a very high voltage. That can be catastrophic right?
Best regards,
Hi Keerthy,
On 15 September 2016 at 05:16, Keerthy a0393675@ti.com wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:38 PM, Keerthy wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:26 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag);
- int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
I personally do not like setting an extra flag everywhere just because we want to support force option.
I would rather have 2 functions like:
int (*force_set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV); int (*force_set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA);
Where we can set the value ignoring the limits. But again that must be used with at most caution as setting higher voltages might end up damaging the device.
That seems OK to me.
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
I do not know cmd_regulator is the right place to check for min_uV and max_uV. dm_regulator_uclass_platdata has both the limits and this i feel is a perfectly valid check in generic place else we would be again checking for the same condition in every possible regulator specific drivers.
As far as the force option is concerned that i believe is more for testing and like you said can be implemented by setting a flag.
Just take a simple case of say a driver like mmc which unknowingly requests a wrong voltage and the base driver has no check against min and max voltages and assuming the regulator driver goes ahead and sets a very high voltage. That can be catastrophic right?
What is the status of this patch please?
Also it breaks tests (make tests) - can you please take a look?
Regards, Simon
On Tuesday 11 October 2016 05:49 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Keerthy,
On 15 September 2016 at 05:16, Keerthy a0393675@ti.com wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:38 PM, Keerthy wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:26 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag);
- int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
I personally do not like setting an extra flag everywhere just because we want to support force option.
I would rather have 2 functions like:
int (*force_set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV); int (*force_set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA);
Where we can set the value ignoring the limits. But again that must be used with at most caution as setting higher voltages might end up damaging the device.
That seems OK to me.
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
I do not know cmd_regulator is the right place to check for min_uV and max_uV. dm_regulator_uclass_platdata has both the limits and this i feel is a perfectly valid check in generic place else we would be again checking for the same condition in every possible regulator specific drivers.
As far as the force option is concerned that i believe is more for testing and like you said can be implemented by setting a flag.
Just take a simple case of say a driver like mmc which unknowingly requests a wrong voltage and the base driver has no check against min and max voltages and assuming the regulator driver goes ahead and sets a very high voltage. That can be catastrophic right?
What is the status of this patch please?
Also it breaks tests (make tests) - can you please take a look?
Sure Simon. It was hanging somehow. I will redo and repost it.
Regards, Simon
On Wednesday 12 October 2016 11:14 AM, Keerthy wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2016 05:49 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Keerthy,
On 15 September 2016 at 05:16, Keerthy a0393675@ti.com wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:38 PM, Keerthy wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2016 04:26 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello Keerthy,
On 09/15/2016 10:54 AM, Keerthy wrote:
Currently the specific set ops functions are directly called without any check for voltage/current limits for a regulator. Check for them and proceed.
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c index 4434e36..089455e 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/regulator-uclass.c @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ int regulator_get_value(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_value(struct udevice *dev, int uV) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uV < uc_pdata->min_uV || uV > uc_pdata->max_uV)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_value) return -ENOSYS;@@ -61,6 +66,11 @@ int regulator_get_current(struct udevice *dev) int regulator_set_current(struct udevice *dev, int uA) { const struct dm_regulator_ops *ops = dev_get_driver_ops(dev);
- struct dm_regulator_uclass_platdata *uc_pdata;
- uc_pdata = dev_get_uclass_platdata(dev);
- if (uA < uc_pdata->min_uA || uA > uc_pdata->max_uA)
return -EINVAL; if (!ops || !ops->set_current) return -ENOSYS;Adding those two checks will conflict with "force" option for cmd/regulator.c:283. There was value range checking in the command's code, but it was left unchecked for regulator direct calls.
This change is good, but then maybe the "force" option should be removed from command, or API's prototypes should be updated by force flag argument?
I assumed that this option could be useful for quick over-voltage setting (until reboot), since usually (min_uV == max_uV) - the voltage can't be changed in any range.
The driver should take care about ignore it or not, however probably nobody used this.
Of course this could potentially damage the device by wrong use, which can be also made by passing the force flag as an argument - by mistake.
What do you thing about, update the dm_regulator_ops by:
- int (*set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV, int flag);
- int (*set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA, int flag);
I personally do not like setting an extra flag everywhere just because we want to support force option.
I would rather have 2 functions like:
int (*force_set_value)(struct udevice *dev, int uV); int (*force_set_current)(struct udevice *dev, int uA);
Where we can set the value ignoring the limits. But again that must be used with at most caution as setting higher voltages might end up damaging the device.
That seems OK to me.
and also new flag to the present defined:
- REGULATOR_FLAG_FORCE = 1 << 2
This requires more work, but will provide the functionality in a proper way.
I do not know cmd_regulator is the right place to check for min_uV and max_uV. dm_regulator_uclass_platdata has both the limits and this i feel is a perfectly valid check in generic place else we would be again checking for the same condition in every possible regulator specific drivers.
As far as the force option is concerned that i believe is more for testing and like you said can be implemented by setting a flag.
Just take a simple case of say a driver like mmc which unknowingly requests a wrong voltage and the base driver has no check against min and max voltages and assuming the regulator driver goes ahead and sets a very high voltage. That can be catastrophic right?
What is the status of this patch please?
Also it breaks tests (make tests) - can you please take a look?
Sure Simon. It was hanging somehow. I will redo and repost it.
Simon,
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/686932/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/686933/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/686934/
Posted the above 3 as a rework for this patch. Let me know if these are fine.
Regards, Keerthy
Regards, Simon
participants (4)
-
Keerthy -
Keerthy -
Przemyslaw Marczak -
Simon Glass