Re: About regression caused by commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after creating regulator")

Re: About regression caused by commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after creating regulator")

[Qu Wenruo]

Also add Rockchip and device tree mail lists to the CC, just in case we
need to update the device tree for RK808.

On 2020/11/8 下午3:35, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi Michał,
> 
> Recently when testing v5.10-rc2, I found my RK3399 boards failed to boot
> from NVME.
> 
> It turns out that, commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after
> creating regulator") seems to be the cause.
> 
> In RK3399 board, vpcie1v8 and vpcie0v9 of the pcie controller is
> provided by RK808 regulator.
> With that commit, now RK808 regulator fails to register:
> 
> [    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
> 
> Since voltages from rk808 are not proper registered, then it prevents
> the rockchip PCIE controller to find its voltage provider:
> 
> [    1.855276] rockchip_pcie_probe: parse_host_dt err=-517
> 
> 
> I currently tested with that commit reverted, then the RK808 works again.
> 
> Is this a known regression? Or the RK808 device tree is out of spec?
> 
> It would help a lot to fix the problem before the regression makes all
> RK3399 boards to lose their ability to initialize PCIE controller.
> 
> 
> BTW I didn't find that patch submitted to mail lists like
> linux-arm-kernel. I doubt if that commit really got enough testing from
> arm community, especially considering that currently ARM is the biggest
> user of device-tree and regulators.
> 
> Maybe it's a good idea to also submit such patches to arm related mail
> lists next time?
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
>