On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:58:44PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > On 20-10-20 16:28, Marco Felsch wrote: > > On 20-10-20 16:09, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > Hi Uwe, > > > > > > > > On 20-10-20 13:15, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > Instead of just ignoring errors related to regulator getting error out. > > > > > In case there is no regulator in the device tree, regulator_get() returns > > > > > the dummy regulator and not an error code, so the change is right for > > > > > this situation, too. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c | 7 +++++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c b/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c > > > > > index 786beede6d89..dd0e3c1a2a58 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/imx/chipidea-imx.c > > > > > @@ -267,8 +267,11 @@ static int imx_chipidea_probe(struct device_d *dev) > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > ci->vbus = regulator_get(dev, "vbus"); > > > > > - if (IS_ERR(ci->vbus)) > > > > > - ci->vbus = NULL; > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(ci->vbus)) { > > > > > + ret = ERR_PTR(ci->vbus); > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot get vbus regulator: %s\n", strerror(-ret)); > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > Returning the error here can cause problems with exisiting boards, e.g. > > > > if the regulator support is missing for the specified vbus regulator. > > > > This is often the case since we have very limited regulator support for > > > > now. > > > > > > But when there is a regulator we also have to control it, right? > > > > So you need to add each regulator driver or worst case you need to add > > PMIC drivers. Right, as if you don't the hardware might be off and USB won't work without a useful error message. > > If I remember correctly, I added the same for mci which > > broke a lot of boards. Later you reverted those commit. Now Oleksij > > added the regulator support for the fec driver and people are starting > > to remove the phy-supply handle from the barebox-dt's (commit 84cf5cfa9a > > ("ARM: dts: imx6qdl: pfla02: Remove fec phy-supply")). I'm not again Looking at 84cf5cfa9a there is at least a comment missing about why this property is deleted. Something like diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-phytec-pfla02.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-phytec-pfla02.dtsi index b83511cb011f..7a12e2a06be4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-phytec-pfla02.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx6qdl-phytec-pfla02.dtsi @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ }; &fec { + /* + * barebox doesn't have a driver for the PMIC providing the phy-supply + * (dlg,da9063). So remove the phy-supply property and rely on the + * PMIC's reset default which has this supply enabled. + */ /delete-property/ phy-supply; }; > > this patch, just wanted to show the consequences of it. > > Sorry I have to correct myself, pls check the linux driver: > > static int ci_get_platdata(struct device *dev, > struct ci_hdrc_platform_data *platdata) > { > > ... > > /* Get the vbus regulator */ > platdata->reg_vbus = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vbus"); > if (PTR_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus) == -EPROBE_DEFER) { > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > } else if (PTR_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus) == -ENODEV) { > /* no vbus regulator is needed */ > platdata->reg_vbus = NULL; > } else if (IS_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus)) { > dev_err(dev, "Getting regulator error: %ld\n", > PTR_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus)); > return PTR_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus); > } The difference between regulator_get and regulator_get_optional is that the former doesn't return -ENODEV but yields the dummy regulator instead. (Yes, this is the inversed semantic compared with gpio_get_optional() and clk_get_optional().) So using devm_regulator_get_optional and ignoring -ENODEV is kind of strange. So I think the above can be simplified to: platdata->reg_vbus = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vbus"); if (IS_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus)) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(platdata->reg_vbus), "Failed to get vbus regulator\n"); and then it is more obvious that my barebox patch does the same. Am I missing something? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |