On Sat, 23 May 2026 15:04:25 +0200, Federico Amedeo Izzo <[email protected]> wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c > index dc40ee62daf..0e2e45f1075 100644 > --- a/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c > +++ b/drivers/ufs/ufs-qcom.c > @@ -561,6 +562,19 @@ static int ufs_qcom_init(struct ufs_hba *hba) > > priv->hba = hba; > > + /* enable regulators */ > + err = regulator_set_enable(priv->vcc, true); > + if (err && err != -ENOSYS) > + dev_warn(hba->dev, "failed to enable regulator > vcc-supply:%d\n", err); > + > + err = regulator_set_enable(priv->vccq, true); > + if (err && err != -ENOSYS) > + dev_warn(hba->dev, "failed to enable regulator > vccq-supply:%d\n", err); > + > + err = regulator_set_enable(priv->vccq2, true); > + if (err && err != -ENOSYS) > + dev_warn(hba->dev, "failed to enable regulator > vccq2-supply:%d\n", err);
vccq2 is optional right? Is it verified that the optional code route will never return ENOSYS and there is handling in regulator_set_enable for NULL regulators? -- Neha Malcom Francis <[email protected]>
