linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] wifi: ath10k: snoc: support powering on the device via pwrseq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6db7a42e-7f12-499b-b36e-687ec93b2e62@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:12:19 -0800
From: Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Balakrishna Godavarthi <quic_bgodavar@...cinc.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] wifi: ath10k: snoc: support powering on the
 device via pwrseq

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)