[PATCH v4 2/2] ufs: qcom: add ufs host regulator support

[Neha Malcom Francis]

On Sat, 23 May 2026 15:04:25 +0200, Federico Amedeo Izzo <federico at izzo.pro> 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 <n-francis at ti.com>