El Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:59:54PM +0200, Eugen Hristev deia:
> On 3/8/23 13:30, Xavier Drudis Ferran wrote:
> > El Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 09:31:33AM +0200, Eugen Hristev deia:
> > > @@ -105,6 +130,17 @@ static int rockchip_usb2phy_power_off(struct phy
> > > *phy)
> > > struct udevice *parent = dev_get_parent(phy->dev);
> > > struct rockchip_usb2phy *priv = dev_get_priv(parent);
> > > const struct rockchip_usb2phy_port_cfg *port_cfg =
> > > us2phy_get_port(phy);
> > > + struct udevice *vbus = NULL;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + vbus = rockchip_usb2phy_check_vbus(phy);
> > > + if (vbus) {
> > > + ret = regulator_set_enable(vbus, false);
> > > + if (ret) {
> >
> > Could we have
> > if (ret && ret != -EACCES ) {
> > instead here ?
> > (reason below)
> Hi,
>
> I have nothing against it, the regulator should be all the way optional IMO
>
Well, at least if it is always-on for whatever reason, then it is not an
error that it cannot be turned off.
> > The apparent reason is that arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtsi
> > says
> >
> > vcc5v0_host: vcc5v0-host-regulator {
> > compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > enable-active-high;
> > gpio = <&gpio4 RK_PD1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > pinctrl-names = "default";
> > pinctrl-0 = <&vcc5v0_host_en>;
> > regulator-name = "vcc5v0_host";
> >
> > /*****/ regulator-always-on; /*****/
>
> Pretty weird that a regulator that can be turned on/off via a GPIO is
> 'regulator-always-on'. I find this odd and i think it's not correctly
> described at DT level.
>
I don't know enough to tell. I've just looked a little and it seems
to be used for USB only (on rock pi 4, firefly, eaidk-610,
khadas-edge, leez-p710, nanopc-t4, orangepi, puma, rock960, rockpro64)
Curiously rk3399-evb does NOT have regulator-always-on in vcc5v0_host
and roc-pc seems to add it in u-boot.dtsi only, since it was preserved
at some u-boot - linux sync.
pinebook-pro has regulator-always-on, but then has
regulator-state-mem, regulator-off-in-suspend...
>
> Anyway, maybe we should move on even if we can't disable the regulator in
> any case ? We should just dev_err and continue ?
>
dev_err or not dev_err depends on whether always-on is always a bug
there or may be a feature, I don't know. But moving on would be nice, yes.
> Kever, do you have any preference ?
>
> Eugen
Thanks
