Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] wifi: ath10k: snoc: support powering on the device via pwrseq

[Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@oss.qualcomm.com>]

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?

> +
>  	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)