RE: [PATCH v3 3/7] PCI: imx6: Fix the regulator dump when link never came up

[Richard Zhu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 5:49 PM
> To: Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown
> <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx;
> linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] PCI: imx6: Fix the regulator dump when link
> never came up
> 
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:18:39AM +0000, Richard Zhu wrote:
> > > Isn't this something that depend on the actual board design? From
> > > the driver point of view you should not silently enforce such design
> > > requirement on the board.
> > > Am I missing something here? Would be glad to you if you can clarify
> in case.
> > >
> > [Richard Zhu] Yes, it is relied on the actual HW board design.
> > This regulator is one optional, not mandatory required for all the board
> designs.
> > So, there is one _enabled or not check before manipulate this regulator.
> I think I was not clear in my question.
> 
> I'm asking what's is going to happen if the vpci-e supply is used in the
> actual board design AND the same regulator is shared with another
> device (to my understanding this should be just fine from the regulator API
> point of view, correct me if I'm wrong).
[Richard Zhu] Yes, agree with you. 
It should be fine from the regulator API point of view.
BR
Richard

> 
> I'm not talking about board designed by NXP in which such use case might
> not exist.
> 
> Francesco