On 1/5/2026 5:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> @@ -1023,9 +1024,15 @@ static int ath10k_hw_power_on(struct ath10k *ar)
>
> ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_SNOC, "soc power on\n");
>
> + if (ar_snoc->pwrseq) {
> + ret = pwrseq_power_on(ar_snoc->pwrseq);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> ret = regulator_bulk_enable(ar_snoc->num_vregs, ar_snoc->vregs);
> if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + goto pwrseq_off;
>
> ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(ar_snoc->num_clks, ar_snoc->clks);
> if (ret)
> @@ -1035,18 +1042,28 @@ static int ath10k_hw_power_on(struct ath10k *ar)
>
> vreg_off:
> regulator_bulk_disable(ar_snoc->num_vregs, ar_snoc->vregs);
> +pwrseq_off:
> + pwrseq_power_off(ar_snoc->pwrseq);
in this function you conditionally call pwrseq_power_on()
but on error you unconditionally call pwrseq_power_off()
in the below function you conditionally call pwrseq_power_off()
so there is inconsistency.
note that both pwrseq_power_on() and pwrseq_power_off() handle a NULL
pwrseq_desc so is there any reason to not just call both both functions
unconditionally everywhere?
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> static int ath10k_hw_power_off(struct ath10k *ar)
> {
> struct ath10k_snoc *ar_snoc = ath10k_snoc_priv(ar);
> + int ret_seq = 0;
> + int ret_vreg;
>
> ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_SNOC, "soc power off\n");
>
> clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(ar_snoc->num_clks, ar_snoc->clks);
>
> - return regulator_bulk_disable(ar_snoc->num_vregs, ar_snoc->vregs);
> + ret_vreg = regulator_bulk_disable(ar_snoc->num_vregs, ar_snoc->vregs);
> +
> + if (ar_snoc->pwrseq)
> + ret_seq = pwrseq_power_off(ar_snoc->pwrseq);
> +
> + return ret_vreg ? : ret_seq;
> }
>
> static void ath10k_snoc_wlan_disable(struct ath10k *ar)
