On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:12:19PM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:

On 1/5/2026 5:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

quoted

@@ -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?

Indeed, it should not be necessary. I'll send a new iteration (and also
update the copyright).

quoted

+
 	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)

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry