Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <79df054046224bbb0716a8c5c2082650290eec86.1621616013.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <79df054046224bbb0716a8c5c2082650290eec86.1621616013.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Sun, 23 May 2021 18:03:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFBinCCBo4fYoO=2NiWTEixPuJo2Q=J1o1+yfi4Oc32SLi=GAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: meson-g12a: Disable the regulator in the error
 handling path of the probe
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     balbi@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>, khilman@baylibre.com,
        jbrunet@baylibre.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Christophe,

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:55 PM Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> If an error occurs after a successful 'regulator_enable()' call,
> 'regulator_disable()' must be called.
>
> Fix the error handling path of the probe accordingly.
>
> The remove function doesn't need to be fixed, because the
> 'regulator_disable()' call is already hidden in 'dwc3_meson_g12a_suspend()'
> which is called via 'pm_runtime_set_suspended()' in the remove function.
>
> Fixes: c99993376f72 ("usb: dwc3: Add Amlogic G12A DWC3 glue")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
for me this makes sense so:
Reviewed-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>

> ---
> Please review carefully.
>
> I'm not that sure about:
>    The remove function doesn't need to be fixed, because the
>    'regulator_disable()' call is already hidden in 'dwc3_meson_g12a_suspend()'
>    which is called via 'pm_runtime_set_suspended()' in the remove function.
>
> This is more a guess than anything else!
I am not 100% sure about the suspend code-path, so I am hoping that
someone else (for example Neil) can also review your patch


Best regards,
Martin