> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2022年7月13日 16:41
> To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx;
> festevam@xxxxxxxxx; francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx
> <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 11/17] PCI: imx6: Move regulator enable out of
> imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset()
>
> Am Freitag, dem 01.07.2022 um 11:25 +0800 schrieb Richard Zhu:
> > Move regulator enable out of imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset(), since
> > the
> > regulator_enable() has nothing to do in with
> > imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>
>
> Ah, so you are doing things in two steps. Disregard my first comment on the
> last patch then.
Thanks.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c | 36
> > ++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > index f72eb609769b..0b168f0d57b8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > @@ -712,19 +712,10 @@ static int imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset(struct
> imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> > struct device *dev = pci->dev;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (imx6_pcie->vpcie) {
> > - ret = regulator_enable(imx6_pcie->vpcie);
> > - if (ret) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "failed to enable vpcie regulator: %d\n",
> > - ret);
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
> > ret = imx6_pcie_clk_enable(imx6_pcie);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "unable to enable pcie clocks: %d\n", ret);
> > - goto err_clks;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > switch (imx6_pcie->drvdata->variant) { @@ -783,15 +774,6 @@ static
> > int imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> > -
> > -err_clks:
> > - if (imx6_pcie->vpcie) {
> > - ret = regulator_disable(imx6_pcie->vpcie);
> > - if (ret)
> > - dev_err(dev, "failed to disable vpcie regulator: %d\n",
> > - ret);
> > - }
> > - return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static int imx6_pcie_wait_for_speed_change(struct imx6_pcie
> > *imx6_pcie) @@ -916,15 +898,29 @@ static int
> > imx6_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
> >
> > imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset(imx6_pcie);
> > imx6_pcie_init_phy(imx6_pcie);
> > + if (imx6_pcie->vpcie) {
> > + ret = regulator_enable(imx6_pcie->vpcie);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "failed to enable vpcie regulator: %d\n",
> > + ret);
> > + return ret;
>
> If the regulator enable fails, you don't roll back the PHY init and core reset. This
> seems harmless now, but might have unintended consequences if the PHY
> code changes. I think it should be safe to move the regulator enable before the
> PHY init and core reset assert to avoid introducing more failure cleanup paths
> here.
To keep the same behavior, I just place the regulator_enable() in front of
imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset().
It makes sense to move it earlier to avoid the possible failure cleanup of
imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset() and imx6_pcie_init_phy() in future.
Best Regards
Richard
>
> Regards,
> Lucas
>
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset(imx6_pcie);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(dev, "pcie deassert core reset failed: %d\n", ret);
> > - return ret;
> > + goto err_reg_disable;
> > }
> >
> > imx6_setup_phy_mpll(imx6_pcie);
> >
> > return 0;
> > +
> > +err_reg_disable:
> > + if (imx6_pcie->vpcie)
> > + regulator_disable(imx6_pcie->vpcie);
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static const struct dw_pcie_host_ops imx6_pcie_host_ops = {
>
