On 11/30/2020 1:11 PM, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> Control of EP regulators by the RC is needed because of the chicken-and-egg
> situation: although the regulator is "owned" by the EP and would be best
> handled on its driver, the EP cannot be discovered and probed unless its
> regulator is already turned on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c
> index bea86899bd5d..9d4ac42b3bee 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/pci.h>
> #include <linux/printk.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/reset.h>
> #include <linux/sizes.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> @@ -210,6 +211,10 @@ enum pcie_type {
> BCM2711,
> };
>
> +static const char * const ep_regulator_names[] = {
> + "vpcie12v", "vpcie3v3", "vpcie1v8", "vpcie0v9",
Only if you need to re-spin this patch series, I would be keen on
putting each string on its own line, that way when adding a subsequent
regulator name, it is just a matter of an one line d
> +};
> +
> struct pcie_cfg_data {
> const int *offsets;
> const enum pcie_type type;
> @@ -287,8 +292,25 @@ struct brcm_pcie {
> u32 hw_rev;
> void (*perst_set)(struct brcm_pcie *pcie, u32 val);
> void (*bridge_sw_init_set)(struct brcm_pcie *pcie, u32 val);
> + struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[ARRAY_SIZE(ep_regulator_names)];
> };
>
> +static void brcm_set_regulators(struct brcm_pcie *pcie, bool on)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = pcie->dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (on)
> + ret = regulator_bulk_enable(ARRAY_SIZE(ep_regulator_names),
> + pcie->supplies);
> + else
> + ret = regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(ep_regulator_names),
> + pcie->supplies);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to %s EP regulators\n",
> + on ? "enable" : "disable");
Should not you propagate the return value to the caller here?
--
Florian
