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: <jxnfzb442ii2ucbttlcu47emycxeqn2bvu5vi6xjdis77hkes7@tshuuiwv6fte>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 04:57:48 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: 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>, 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 Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:12:19PM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> 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?

Indeed, it should not be necessary. I'll send a new iteration (and also
update the copyright).

> 
> > +
> >  	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)

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry