Re: [PATCHv2] ata: sata_mv: use devm clock helpers

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The return value of `phy_power_on()` is ignored, which can lead to hardware faults and unbalanced `phy_power_off()` execution during teardown.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCHv2] ata: sata_mv: use devm clock helpers ---
commit 4da9c2641dc6134cc0fc1f75c23bcc95ae5882fd
Author: Rosen Penev <[email protected]>

ata: sata_mv: use devm clock helpers

This commit replaces manual clock acquisition and enablement with
devm_clk_get_optional_enabled() for the main and per-port clocks. It
simplifies the error handling and remove paths by removing the manual clock
cleanup.

> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c
> index 41647a56a9f4e..eafd1e6b827dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_mv.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -4120,8 +4118,8 @@ static int mv_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  			/* Cleanup only the initialized ports */
>  			hpriv->n_ports = port;
>  			goto err;
> -		} else
> -			phy_power_on(hpriv->port_phys[port]);
> +		}
> +		phy_power_on(hpriv->port_phys[port]);

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is it safe to ignore the return value of
phy_power_on() here?

If powering on the PHY fails, the SATA controller might still attempt to
initialize and use the unpowered port. Could this result in hardware
lockups or register access faults?

[ ... ]

> @@ -4190,17 +4179,8 @@ static void mv_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	int port;
>  	ata_host_detach(host);
>  
> -	if (!IS_ERR(hpriv->clk)) {
> -		clk_disable_unprepare(hpriv->clk);
> -		clk_put(hpriv->clk);
> -	}
> -	for (port = 0; port < host->n_ports; port++) {
> -		if (!IS_ERR(hpriv->port_clks[port])) {
> -			clk_disable_unprepare(hpriv->port_clks[port]);
> -			clk_put(hpriv->port_clks[port]);
> -		}
> +	for (port = 0; port < host->n_ports; port++)
>  		phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]);

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this code unconditionally power off
ports even if phy_power_on() failed during mv_platform_probe()?

If the earlier power on operation failed and was ignored, calling
phy_power_off() here could decrement the PHY's power count and runtime PM
usage count below zero, potentially causing unbalanced lifecycle operations
in the PM framework.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1