| Message ID | 1eebc002101931012d337cda23d18f85b0326361.1573908530.git.robin.murphy@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] PCI: rockchip: Make some regulators non-optional | expand |
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and > are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes > sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if > not explicitly described. Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> This not only makes sense it's a fix. regulator_get_optional() should only be used if the supply may be physically absent (eg, when the feature can be left unpowered or where there's an option to switch in an internal regualtor).
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and > are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes > sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if > not explicitly described. > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) > dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); > } > > - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); > - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { > - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) > - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); > - } > + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); > + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > > - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); > - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) > - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); > - } > + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); > + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return 0; > } > @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) > } > } > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); > - goto err_disable_3v3; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); > + goto err_disable_3v3; > } > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > - goto err_disable_1v8; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > + goto err_disable_1v8; > } > > return 0; > > err_disable_1v8: > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > err_disable_3v3: > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) > > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return ret; > } > @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) > struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > int err; > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > - return err; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > + return err; > } > > err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); > @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) > err_pcie_resume: > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > err_disable_0v9: > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > return err; > } > > @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > err_set_vpcie: > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > return err; > @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return 0; > } > -- > 2.17.1 >
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and > are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes > sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if > not explicitly described. > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. Lorenzo > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c > @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) > dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); > } > > - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); > - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { > - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) > - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); > - } > + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); > + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > > - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); > - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) > - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); > - } > + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); > + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return 0; > } > @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) > } > } > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); > - goto err_disable_3v3; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); > + goto err_disable_3v3; > } > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > - goto err_disable_1v8; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > + goto err_disable_1v8; > } > > return 0; > > err_disable_1v8: > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > err_disable_3v3: > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) > > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return ret; > } > @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) > struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > int err; > > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { > - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > - if (err) { > - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > - return err; > - } > + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); > + return err; > } > > err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); > @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) > err_pcie_resume: > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > err_disable_0v9: > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > return err; > } > > @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > err_set_vpcie: > rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); > return err; > @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); > if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) > regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) > - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); > + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); > > return 0; > } > -- > 2.17.1 >
On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >> not explicitly described. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >> --- >> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > > Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to detect the controller anymore. The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller initialization. I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable to boot the device. I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE interface for. Thanks, Qu > > Lorenzo > >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >> index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >> @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >> dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); >> } >> >> - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) >> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); >> - } >> + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> >> - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) >> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); >> - } >> + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >> } >> } >> >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> - if (err) { >> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >> - goto err_disable_3v3; >> - } >> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> + if (err) { >> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >> + goto err_disable_3v3; >> } >> >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> - if (err) { >> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >> - goto err_disable_1v8; >> - } >> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + if (err) { >> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >> + goto err_disable_1v8; >> } >> >> return 0; >> >> err_disable_1v8: >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> err_disable_3v3: >> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >> @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >> >> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >> >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> >> return ret; >> } >> @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> int err; >> >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> - if (err) { >> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >> - return err; >> - } >> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + if (err) { >> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >> + return err; >> } >> >> err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); >> @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >> err_pcie_resume: >> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >> err_disable_0v9: >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> return err; >> } >> >> @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> err_set_vpcie: >> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >> return err; >> @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >> >> return 0; >> } >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
On 2020/11/7 下午7:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>> not explicitly described. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >> >> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. > > Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to > detect the controller anymore. > > The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller initialization. > > I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages > are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the > controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. > > This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable > to boot the device. > > I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end > users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE > interface for. My bad, it's not that easy. The dtsi has vpcie1v8 and vpcie0v9 defined. It should be something else wrong. Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >> Lorenzo >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>> dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); >>> } >>> >>> - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) >>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); >>> - } >>> + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> >>> - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) >>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); >>> - } >>> + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>> - goto err_disable_3v3; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>> + goto err_disable_3v3; >>> } >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> - goto err_disable_1v8; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> + goto err_disable_1v8; >>> } >>> >>> return 0; >>> >>> err_disable_1v8: >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> err_disable_3v3: >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return ret; >>> } >>> @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> int err; >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> - return err; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> + return err; >>> } >>> >>> err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); >>> @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> err_pcie_resume: >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> err_disable_0v9: >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> return err; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> err_set_vpcie: >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> return err; >>> @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -- >>> 2.17.1 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >>
On 2020-11-07 11:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>> not explicitly described. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >> >> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. > > Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to > detect the controller anymore. > > The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller initialization. That's -EPROBE_DEFER, which must mean that a regulator *is* described, but you're missing the relevant driver - that's an issue with your config/initrd. Being optional should only change the behaviour if the supply is totally absent (i.e. you get -ENODEV instead of a dummy regulator), so I don't see that it would make any difference in this situation anyway :/ > I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages > are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the > controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. Unlike the 12V and 3V3 supplies to the slot, these supplies are to the PCIE_AVDD_0V9 and PCIE_AVDD_1V8 pins on the SoC itself, which the datasheet describe as "Supply voltage for PCIE". Having power is kind of important for the I/O circuits on all the signal pins to work. Now it's almost certainly true that these supplies technically belong to the phy rather than the controller, but it's a bit late to change the bindings for the sake of semantics. > This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable > to boot the device. > > I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end > users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE > interface for. I *am* that end user in this case - I use an M.2 NVME on my board, which prompted me to take a look at the regulator handling here in the first place, to see if it might be possible to shut up the annoying message about a 12V supply that is entirely irrelevant to a board without a full-size PCIe slot. I use a mainline-based distro, so I've been running this change for nearly a year since it landed in v5.5, and I'm sure many others have too. I've not heard of any other complaints in that time... Robin. > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >> Lorenzo >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>> @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>> dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); >>> } >>> >>> - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) >>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); >>> - } >>> + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> >>> - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) >>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); >>> - } >>> + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>> - goto err_disable_3v3; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>> + goto err_disable_3v3; >>> } >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> - goto err_disable_1v8; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> + goto err_disable_1v8; >>> } >>> >>> return 0; >>> >>> err_disable_1v8: >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> err_disable_3v3: >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return ret; >>> } >>> @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> int err; >>> >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> - if (err) { >>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> - return err; >>> - } >>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + if (err) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>> + return err; >>> } >>> >>> err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); >>> @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>> err_pcie_resume: >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> err_disable_0v9: >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> return err; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> err_set_vpcie: >>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>> return err; >>> @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -- >>> 2.17.1 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >> >
On 2020/11/7 下午8:47, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2020-11-07 11:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>>> not explicitly described. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 >>>> ++++++++------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >>> >>> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. >> >> Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to >> detect the controller anymore. >> >> The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller >> initialization. > > That's -EPROBE_DEFER, which must mean that a regulator *is* described, > but you're missing the relevant driver - that's an issue with your > config/initrd. Being optional should only change the behaviour if the > supply is totally absent (i.e. you get -ENODEV instead of a dummy > regulator), so I don't see that it would make any difference in this > situation anyway :/ > >> I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages >> are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the >> controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. > > Unlike the 12V and 3V3 supplies to the slot, these supplies are to the > PCIE_AVDD_0V9 and PCIE_AVDD_1V8 pins on the SoC itself, which the > datasheet describe as "Supply voltage for PCIE". Having power is kind of > important for the I/O circuits on all the signal pins to work. > > Now it's almost certainly true that these supplies technically belong to > the phy rather than the controller, but it's a bit late to change the > bindings for the sake of semantics. > >> This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable >> to boot the device. >> >> I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end >> users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE >> interface for. > > I *am* that end user in this case - I use an M.2 NVME on my board, which > prompted me to take a look at the regulator handling here in the first > place, to see if it might be possible to shut up the annoying message > about a 12V supply that is entirely irrelevant to a board without a > full-size PCIe slot. I use a mainline-based distro, so I've been running > this change for nearly a year since it landed in v5.5, and I'm sure many > others have too. I've not heard of any other complaints in that time... Sorry for the wrong wording, thank you for your contribution first. It really makes RK3399 the primary testing bed for 64K page size, and save me a lot of time. I'm wondering how the -EPROBE_DEFER happens. I have only tested two kernel versions, v5.9-rc4 and v5.10-rc2. The config works for rc4, unless something big changed in rc2, it shouldn't change much, right? The 1v8 and 0v9 is just alwayson regulator, IMHO it doesn't really need special driver. Or does it? Thanks, Qu > > Robin. > >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >> >>> >>> Lorenzo >>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>> b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>> index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>> @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct >>>> rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>>> dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); >>>> } >>>> - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, >>>> "vpcie1v8"); >>>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) >>>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); >>>> - } >>>> + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, >>>> "vpcie0v9"); >>>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) >>>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); >>>> - } >>>> + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct >>>> rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>>> } >>>> } >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> - if (err) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>>> - goto err_disable_3v3; >>>> - } >>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> + if (err) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>>> + goto err_disable_3v3; >>>> } >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> - if (err) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>> - goto err_disable_1v8; >>>> - } >>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + if (err) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>> + goto err_disable_1v8; >>>> } >>>> return 0; >>>> err_disable_1v8: >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> err_disable_3v3: >>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>> @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>> rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> return ret; >>>> } >>>> @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>> rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>> int err; >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> - if (err) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>> - return err; >>>> - } >>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + if (err) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>> + return err; >>>> } >>>> err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); >>>> @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>> rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>> err_pcie_resume: >>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>> err_disable_0v9: >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> return err; >>>> } >>>> @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> err_set_vpcie: >>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>> return err; >>>> @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >>> >> >
On 2020/11/7 下午8:54, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2020/11/7 下午8:47, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2020-11-07 11:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>>>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>>>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>>>> not explicitly described. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 >>>>> ++++++++------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. >>> >>> Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to >>> detect the controller anymore. >>> >>> The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller >>> initialization. >> >> That's -EPROBE_DEFER, which must mean that a regulator *is* described, >> but you're missing the relevant driver - that's an issue with your >> config/initrd. Being optional should only change the behaviour if the >> supply is totally absent (i.e. you get -ENODEV instead of a dummy >> regulator), so I don't see that it would make any difference in this >> situation anyway :/ >> >>> I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages >>> are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the >>> controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. >> >> Unlike the 12V and 3V3 supplies to the slot, these supplies are to the >> PCIE_AVDD_0V9 and PCIE_AVDD_1V8 pins on the SoC itself, which the >> datasheet describe as "Supply voltage for PCIE". Having power is kind of >> important for the I/O circuits on all the signal pins to work. >> >> Now it's almost certainly true that these supplies technically belong to >> the phy rather than the controller, but it's a bit late to change the >> bindings for the sake of semantics. >> >>> This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable >>> to boot the device. >>> >>> I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end >>> users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE >>> interface for. >> >> I *am* that end user in this case - I use an M.2 NVME on my board, which >> prompted me to take a look at the regulator handling here in the first >> place, to see if it might be possible to shut up the annoying message >> about a 12V supply that is entirely irrelevant to a board without a >> full-size PCIe slot. I use a mainline-based distro, so I've been running >> this change for nearly a year since it landed in v5.5, and I'm sure many >> others have too. I've not heard of any other complaints in that time... > > Sorry for the wrong wording, thank you for your contribution first. > > It really makes RK3399 the primary testing bed for 64K page size, and > save me a lot of time. > > I'm wondering how the -EPROBE_DEFER happens. > I have only tested two kernel versions, v5.9-rc4 and v5.10-rc2. > The config works for rc4, unless something big changed in rc2, it > shouldn't change much, right? > > The 1v8 and 0v9 is just alwayson regulator, IMHO it doesn't really need > special driver. > Or does it? Not a regulator guys by all means, but the dtsi shows the 1v8 and 0v9 are all provided by rk808, while the dmesg shows: [ 0.195604] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: Looking up vin-supply from device tree [ 0.196096] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: vcc3v3_pcie supplying 3300000uV [ 0.197724] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: Looking up vin-supply from device tree [ 0.198211] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: vcc5v0_host supplying 0uV [ 0.198581] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: Looking up vin-supply from device tree [ 0.199082] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: vcc5v0_typec supplying 0uV [ 0.199395] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-phy-regulator: vcc_lan supplying 3300000uV [ 1.074253] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: no vpcie12v regulator found [ 1.086470] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply from device tree [ 1.086484] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply property in node /vdd-log failed [ 1.086501] vdd_log: supplied by regulator-dummy [ 1.402500] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs0 gpio [ 1.403104] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs1 gpio [ 1.419856] rk808 0-001b: failed to register 12 regulator [ 1.422801] rk808-regulator: probe of rk808-regulator failed with error -22 So this means something wrong with the rk808, resulting no voltage provided from rk808 and screwing up the pcie controller? Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >> Robin. >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >>> >>>> >>>> Lorenzo >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>>> b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>>> index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c >>>>> @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct >>>>> rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>>>> dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); >>>>> } >>>>> - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, >>>>> "vpcie1v8"); >>>>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>>>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) >>>>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); >>>>> - } >>>>> + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); >>>>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, >>>>> "vpcie0v9"); >>>>> - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>>> - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) >>>>> - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); >>>>> - } >>>>> + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); >>>>> + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>>> + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct >>>>> rockchip_pcie *rockchip) >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { >>>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> - if (err) { >>>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>>>> - goto err_disable_3v3; >>>>> - } >>>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> + if (err) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); >>>>> + goto err_disable_3v3; >>>>> } >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> - if (err) { >>>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>>> - goto err_disable_1v8; >>>>> - } >>>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + if (err) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>>> + goto err_disable_1v8; >>>>> } >>>>> return 0; >>>>> err_disable_1v8: >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> err_disable_3v3: >>>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>>> @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>>> rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> return ret; >>>>> } >>>>> @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>>> rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>>> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>>> int err; >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { >>>>> - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> - if (err) { >>>>> - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>>> - return err; >>>>> - } >>>>> + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + if (err) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); >>>>> + return err; >>>>> } >>>>> err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); >>>>> @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>>>> rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) >>>>> err_pcie_resume: >>>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>>> err_disable_0v9: >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> return err; >>>>> } >>>>> @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct >>>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> err_set_vpcie: >>>>> rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); >>>>> return err; >>>>> @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct >>>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); >>>>> if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) >>>>> regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) >>>>> - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); >>>>> + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.17.1 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >>>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
On 2020-11-07 13:30, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2020/11/7 下午8:54, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/11/7 下午8:47, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> On 2020-11-07 11:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>>>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>>>>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>>>>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>>>>> not explicitly described. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 >>>>>> ++++++++------------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. >>>> >>>> Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to >>>> detect the controller anymore. >>>> >>>> The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller >>>> initialization. >>> >>> That's -EPROBE_DEFER, which must mean that a regulator *is* described, >>> but you're missing the relevant driver - that's an issue with your >>> config/initrd. Being optional should only change the behaviour if the >>> supply is totally absent (i.e. you get -ENODEV instead of a dummy >>> regulator), so I don't see that it would make any difference in this >>> situation anyway :/ >>> >>>> I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages >>>> are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the >>>> controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. >>> >>> Unlike the 12V and 3V3 supplies to the slot, these supplies are to the >>> PCIE_AVDD_0V9 and PCIE_AVDD_1V8 pins on the SoC itself, which the >>> datasheet describe as "Supply voltage for PCIE". Having power is kind of >>> important for the I/O circuits on all the signal pins to work. >>> >>> Now it's almost certainly true that these supplies technically belong to >>> the phy rather than the controller, but it's a bit late to change the >>> bindings for the sake of semantics. >>> >>>> This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver unable >>>> to boot the device. >>>> >>>> I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end >>>> users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE >>>> interface for. >>> >>> I *am* that end user in this case - I use an M.2 NVME on my board, which >>> prompted me to take a look at the regulator handling here in the first >>> place, to see if it might be possible to shut up the annoying message >>> about a 12V supply that is entirely irrelevant to a board without a >>> full-size PCIe slot. I use a mainline-based distro, so I've been running >>> this change for nearly a year since it landed in v5.5, and I'm sure many >>> others have too. I've not heard of any other complaints in that time... >> >> Sorry for the wrong wording, thank you for your contribution first. >> >> It really makes RK3399 the primary testing bed for 64K page size, and >> save me a lot of time. >> >> I'm wondering how the -EPROBE_DEFER happens. >> I have only tested two kernel versions, v5.9-rc4 and v5.10-rc2. >> The config works for rc4, unless something big changed in rc2, it >> shouldn't change much, right? >> >> The 1v8 and 0v9 is just alwayson regulator, IMHO it doesn't really need >> special driver. >> Or does it? > > Not a regulator guys by all means, but the dtsi shows the 1v8 and 0v9 > are all provided by rk808, while the dmesg shows: > > [ 0.195604] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: Looking up > vin-supply from device tree > [ 0.196096] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: vcc3v3_pcie > supplying 3300000uV > [ 0.197724] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: Looking up > vin-supply from device tree > [ 0.198211] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: vcc5v0_host > supplying 0uV > [ 0.198581] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: Looking up > vin-supply from device tree > [ 0.199082] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: vcc5v0_typec > supplying 0uV > [ 0.199395] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-phy-regulator: vcc_lan supplying > 3300000uV > [ 1.074253] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: no vpcie12v regulator found > [ 1.086470] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply from device tree > [ 1.086484] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply property in > node /vdd-log failed > [ 1.086501] vdd_log: supplied by regulator-dummy > [ 1.402500] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs0 gpio > [ 1.403104] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs1 gpio > [ 1.419856] rk808 0-001b: failed to register 12 regulator > [ 1.422801] rk808-regulator: probe of rk808-regulator failed with > error -22 > > So this means something wrong with the rk808, resulting no voltage > provided from rk808 and screwing up the pcie controller? Frankly PCIe is the least of your worries there - if the system PMIC is failing to probe then pretty much everything will be degraded: cpufreq won't work, some SD card modes won't work, on some boards entire peripherals like ethernet might not work if they're wired up to use the opposite I/O domain voltage setting from the SoC's power-on default. Focusing on PCIe getting probe-deferred seems a bit like complaining that the carpets on the Titanic are wet ;) Robin.
On 2020/11/9 下午8:00, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2020-11-07 13:30, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/11/7 下午8:54, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2020/11/7 下午8:47, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>> On 2020-11-07 11:36, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2019/11/21 上午1:05, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:19PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>>>>> The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and >>>>>>> are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes >>>>>>> sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if >>>>>>> not explicitly described. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 >>>>>>> ++++++++------------- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Applied to pci/rockchip, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, this commit is cause regression for RK3399 boards unable to >>>>> detect the controller anymore. >>>>> >>>>> The 1v8 (and 0v9) is causing -517 and reject the controller >>>>> initialization. >>>> >>>> That's -EPROBE_DEFER, which must mean that a regulator *is* described, >>>> but you're missing the relevant driver - that's an issue with your >>>> config/initrd. Being optional should only change the behaviour if the >>>> supply is totally absent (i.e. you get -ENODEV instead of a dummy >>>> regulator), so I don't see that it would make any difference in this >>>> situation anyway :/ >>>> >>>>> I'm not a PCI guy, but a quick google search shows these two voltages >>>>> are not related to PCIE core functionality, especially considering the >>>>> controller used in RK3399 are mostly to provide NVME support. >>>> >>>> Unlike the 12V and 3V3 supplies to the slot, these supplies are to the >>>> PCIE_AVDD_0V9 and PCIE_AVDD_1V8 pins on the SoC itself, which the >>>> datasheet describe as "Supply voltage for PCIE". Having power is >>>> kind of >>>> important for the I/O circuits on all the signal pins to work. >>>> >>>> Now it's almost certainly true that these supplies technically >>>> belong to >>>> the phy rather than the controller, but it's a bit late to change the >>>> bindings for the sake of semantics. >>>> >>>>> This bug makes all RK3399 users who put root fs into NVME driver >>>>> unable >>>>> to boot the device. >>>>> >>>>> I really hope some one could test the patch before affecting the end >>>>> users or at least try to understand how most users would use the PCIE >>>>> interface for. >>>> >>>> I *am* that end user in this case - I use an M.2 NVME on my board, >>>> which >>>> prompted me to take a look at the regulator handling here in the first >>>> place, to see if it might be possible to shut up the annoying message >>>> about a 12V supply that is entirely irrelevant to a board without a >>>> full-size PCIe slot. I use a mainline-based distro, so I've been >>>> running >>>> this change for nearly a year since it landed in v5.5, and I'm sure >>>> many >>>> others have too. I've not heard of any other complaints in that time... >>> >>> Sorry for the wrong wording, thank you for your contribution first. >>> >>> It really makes RK3399 the primary testing bed for 64K page size, and >>> save me a lot of time. >>> >>> I'm wondering how the -EPROBE_DEFER happens. >>> I have only tested two kernel versions, v5.9-rc4 and v5.10-rc2. >>> The config works for rc4, unless something big changed in rc2, it >>> shouldn't change much, right? >>> >>> The 1v8 and 0v9 is just alwayson regulator, IMHO it doesn't really need >>> special driver. >>> Or does it? >> >> Not a regulator guys by all means, but the dtsi shows the 1v8 and 0v9 >> are all provided by rk808, while the dmesg shows: >> >> [ 0.195604] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: Looking up >> vin-supply from device tree >> [ 0.196096] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-pcie-regulator: vcc3v3_pcie >> supplying 3300000uV >> [ 0.197724] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: Looking up >> vin-supply from device tree >> [ 0.198211] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-host-regulator: vcc5v0_host >> supplying 0uV >> [ 0.198581] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: Looking up >> vin-supply from device tree >> [ 0.199082] reg-fixed-voltage vcc5v0-typec-regulator: vcc5v0_typec >> supplying 0uV >> [ 0.199395] reg-fixed-voltage vcc3v3-phy-regulator: vcc_lan supplying >> 3300000uV >> [ 1.074253] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: no vpcie12v regulator found >> [ 1.086470] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply from >> device tree >> [ 1.086484] pwm-regulator vdd-log: Looking up pwm-supply property in >> node /vdd-log failed >> [ 1.086501] vdd_log: supplied by regulator-dummy >> [ 1.402500] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs0 gpio >> [ 1.403104] rk808-regulator rk808-regulator: there is no dvs1 gpio >> [ 1.419856] rk808 0-001b: failed to register 12 regulator >> [ 1.422801] rk808-regulator: probe of rk808-regulator failed with >> error -22 >> >> So this means something wrong with the rk808, resulting no voltage >> provided from rk808 and screwing up the pcie controller? > > Frankly PCIe is the least of your worries there - if the system PMIC is > failing to probe then pretty much everything will be degraded: cpufreq > won't work, some SD card modes won't work, on some boards entire > peripherals like ethernet might not work if they're wired up to use the > opposite I/O domain voltage setting from the SoC's power-on default. > > Focusing on PCIe getting probe-deferred seems a bit like complaining > that the carpets on the Titanic are wet ;) That's true. Thankfully bisect lead to the cause. It's even deeper in the core regulator code. Commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after creating regulator") makes the RK808 unable to register. And fix for that commit is already merged in upstream. Sorry for the disruption. Thanks, Qu > > Robin. >
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c index ef8e677ce9d1..68525f8ac4d9 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c @@ -620,19 +620,13 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) dev_info(dev, "no vpcie3v3 regulator found\n"); } - rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie1v8"); - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8) != -ENODEV) - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie1v8 regulator found\n"); - } + rockchip->vpcie1v8 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie1v8"); + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8); - rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie0v9"); - if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { - if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9) != -ENODEV) - return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); - dev_info(dev, "no vpcie0v9 regulator found\n"); - } + rockchip->vpcie0v9 = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vpcie0v9"); + if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) + return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9); return 0; } @@ -658,27 +652,22 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip) } } - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) { - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); - if (err) { - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); - goto err_disable_3v3; - } + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n"); + goto err_disable_3v3; } - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); - if (err) { - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); - goto err_disable_1v8; - } + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); + goto err_disable_1v8; } return 0; err_disable_1v8: - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); err_disable_3v3: if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); @@ -897,8 +886,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); return ret; } @@ -908,12 +896,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); int err; - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) { - err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); - if (err) { - dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); - return err; - } + err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + if (err) { + dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n"); + return err; } err = rockchip_pcie_enable_clocks(rockchip); @@ -939,8 +925,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) err_pcie_resume: rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); err_disable_0v9: - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); return err; } @@ -1081,10 +1066,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); err_set_vpcie: rockchip_pcie_disable_clocks(rockchip); return err; @@ -1108,10 +1091,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v); if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3); - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie1v8)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); - if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie0v9)) - regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8); + regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie0v9); return 0; }
The 0V9 and 1V8 supplies power the PCIe block in the SoC itself, and are thus fundamental to PCIe being usable at all. As such, it makes sense to treat them as non-optional and rely on dummy regulators if not explicitly described. Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> --- drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 69 ++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)