Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27507-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:18:01 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: event: Add netlink command for event mask
Message-ID: <2e9de7ba-0020-42b6-8fc6-71ebae4b9fa5@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240116103131.413205-1-naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
 <e3e16af2-7f8d-4776-9726-f6282128a766@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Z2aIztPMx+sJYNwX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e3e16af2-7f8d-4776-9726-f6282128a766@gmail.com>


--Z2aIztPMx+sJYNwX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:46:41PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> Do you think allowing setting the 'filtering' this way per socket would work
> or be beneficial?

I haven't thought about it enough to say anything about the working bit
but it does seem like it could be useful (eg, a UI might be interested
in more events than something just looking for critical errors).

--Z2aIztPMx+sJYNwX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmWmnigACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CkAgf/Y+46lUJYdVIwwhubucfNH2JoaK11zm6Ux+fCQqK9Ht+2rC+jp9bjsz/H
pBdHgeZUT1wuo6JQFDCMxu+XAP1xxWgbvtlhFH06RiljAO9FBbIXRYDgs3An5o21
AAeJScw33Zx8f8kDbW+bYjOpyGNdHa1yvfAQAtxxn9sAM9Y3siMeW5UsW0R3yRzB
VOfuHfZnqH/FkV/9i5oEXwIQFTOh9t6X9QIxOCvdZ9LT+qDb8pJwYqTBJOXzY/oh
d9JQByPIBs/6kwTehCRgNUxG6IU4q/mEkn7Evi9a14azpOMhsJjDHxjLFKvP5NmS
vXLEOWTDbNb87ndwSqgV0Fbl6Dd+JA==
=zSBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Z2aIztPMx+sJYNwX--