On 12/08/2024 22:08, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 8/12/24 12:59, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> On 12/08/2024 18:49, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 8/12/24 08:43, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> This check is carried out after getting the regulator, and the device >>>> can be disabled if an error occurs. >>>> >>> >>> I do not see a possible path for a call to cc2_enable() at this point, >>> meaning the regulator won't ever be enabled. Please provide a better >>> explanation why this patch would be necessary. >>> >>> Guenter >>> >> >> Hi Guenter, >> >> this patch enforces the state where the dedicated regulator is disabled, >> no matter what the history of the regulator was. If a previous >> regulator_disable() failed, it would still be desirable that the >> regulator gets disabled the next time the driver is probed (i.e. a new >> attempt to disable it on failure). >> cc2_disable() checks first if the regulator is enabled to avoid any >> imbalance. >> > > That is very theoretic. Sorry, I am not going to accept this patch. > > Guenter > I get your point, but given that this device requires a dedicated regulator, I believe it makes sense that it tries to disable it whenever possible if it's not going to be used. I think that makes more sense that just returning an error value without even making sure that de regulator was disabled, doesn't it? Of course this is not a killer feature, and I don't want to make you waste much time with it. But I think the dedicated regulator should be shut down in all error paths, whatever status it had before. If that does not sound convincing, then I won't argue any longer. Please take a look at the first patch of the series in any case, which is not a killer feature either, but cleaner than the current implementation. Thanks and best regards, Javier Carrasco
