[V6] ARM: shmobile: Rework the PMIC IRQ line quirk

Commit Message

Marek Vasut Sept. 18, 2018, 12:23 p.m. UTC

Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
PMICs -- da9063 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
PMIC to deassert the IRQ.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[e-mail]>
Cc: Simon Horman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]> (on Koelsch)
---
V2: - Replace the DT shared IRQ check loop with memcmp()
    - Send the I2C message to deassert the IRQ line to all PMICs
      in the list with shared IRQ line instead of just one
    - Add comment that this works only in case all the PMICs are
      on the same I2C bus
V3: - Drop the addr = 0x00 init
    - Drop reinit of argsa in rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk
V4: - Squash regulator_quirk on single line
    - Drop !np check in for_each_matching_node_and_match()
    - Use argsa in of_irq_parse_one
V5: - Check kzalloc failure
    - Rename da...._msgs to da...._msg
    - Don't reinit quirk->shared
V6: - Skip invalid entries instead of aborting on them
---
 .../mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c | 139 ++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

Comments

Geert Uytterhoeven Sept. 18, 2018, 12:52 p.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:23 PM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
> parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
> PMICs -- da9063 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
> to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
> PMIC to deassert the IRQ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Simon Horman <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]> (on Koelsch)
> ---
> V2: - Replace the DT shared IRQ check loop with memcmp()
>     - Send the I2C message to deassert the IRQ line to all PMICs
>       in the list with shared IRQ line instead of just one
>     - Add comment that this works only in case all the PMICs are
>       on the same I2C bus
> V3: - Drop the addr = 0x00 init
>     - Drop reinit of argsa in rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk
> V4: - Squash regulator_quirk on single line
>     - Drop !np check in for_each_matching_node_and_match()
>     - Use argsa in of_irq_parse_one
> V5: - Check kzalloc failure
>     - Rename da...._msgs to da...._msg
>     - Don't reinit quirk->shared
> V6: - Skip invalid entries instead of aborting on them

Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [e-mail]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Simon Horman Sept. 19, 2018, 9:13 a.m. UTC | #2

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:52:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:23 PM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
> > parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
> > PMICs -- da9063 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
> > to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
> > PMIC to deassert the IRQ.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Simon Horman <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]> (on Koelsch)
> > ---
> > V2: - Replace the DT shared IRQ check loop with memcmp()
> >     - Send the I2C message to deassert the IRQ line to all PMICs
> >       in the list with shared IRQ line instead of just one
> >     - Add comment that this works only in case all the PMICs are
> >       on the same I2C bus
> > V3: - Drop the addr = 0x00 init
> >     - Drop reinit of argsa in rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk
> > V4: - Squash regulator_quirk on single line
> >     - Drop !np check in for_each_matching_node_and_match()
> >     - Use argsa in of_irq_parse_one
> > V5: - Check kzalloc failure
> >     - Rename da...._msgs to da...._msg
> >     - Don't reinit quirk->shared
> > V6: - Skip invalid entries instead of aborting on them
> 
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>

Thanks, applied for v4.20.

Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.

Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.

Marek Vasut Sept. 19, 2018, 9:21 a.m. UTC | #3

On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:52:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:23 PM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
>>> parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
>>> PMICs -- da9063 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
>>> to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
>>> PMIC to deassert the IRQ.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Simon Horman <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
>>> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]> (on Koelsch)
>>> ---
>>> V2: - Replace the DT shared IRQ check loop with memcmp()
>>>     - Send the I2C message to deassert the IRQ line to all PMICs
>>>       in the list with shared IRQ line instead of just one
>>>     - Add comment that this works only in case all the PMICs are
>>>       on the same I2C bus
>>> V3: - Drop the addr = 0x00 init
>>>     - Drop reinit of argsa in rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk
>>> V4: - Squash regulator_quirk on single line
>>>     - Drop !np check in for_each_matching_node_and_match()
>>>     - Use argsa in of_irq_parse_one
>>> V5: - Check kzalloc failure
>>>     - Rename da...._msgs to da...._msg
>>>     - Don't reinit quirk->shared
>>> V6: - Skip invalid entries instead of aborting on them
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> 
> Thanks, applied for v4.20.
> 
> Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
> have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
> from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
> 
> Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
> the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.

Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?

Geert Uytterhoeven Sept. 19, 2018, 9:28 a.m. UTC | #4

Hi Marek,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
> > have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
> > from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
> >
> > Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using

I'm the one who enhanced checkpatch with the new check ;-)

> > the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.
>
> Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
> send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?

Git send-email uses the address from user.email in gitconfig, just
like git commit.

However, I see you're using Gmail's SMTP server. That one replaces the
From-line in the header by your primary email address as configured in Gmail
(even if you have configured Gmail to know the other address is yours, too).

I use my ISP's SMTP server to work around that.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

Geert Uytterhoeven Sept. 19, 2018, 9:30 a.m. UTC | #5

Hi Marek,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
> > > have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
> > > from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
> > >
> > > Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
>
> I'm the one who enhanced checkpatch with the new check ;-)
>
> > > the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.
> >
> > Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
> > send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?
>
> Git send-email uses the address from user.email in gitconfig, just
> like git commit.
>
> However, I see you're using Gmail's SMTP server. That one replaces the
> From-line in the header by your primary email address as configured in Gmail
> (even if you have configured Gmail to know the other address is yours, too).
>
> I use my ISP's SMTP server to work around that.

Another trick that should work:

If you run git send-email in a repo with a different user.email
config, it should
add the original From to the email's body, as it will detect you're submitting
patches on behalf of "someone else".

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

Marek Vasut Sept. 19, 2018, 9:36 a.m. UTC | #6

On 09/19/2018 11:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>> Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
>>>> have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
>>>> from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
>>>>
>>>> Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
>>
>> I'm the one who enhanced checkpatch with the new check ;-)
>>
>>>> the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.
>>>
>>> Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
>>> send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?
>>
>> Git send-email uses the address from user.email in gitconfig, just
>> like git commit.
>>
>> However, I see you're using Gmail's SMTP server. That one replaces the
>> From-line in the header by your primary email address as configured in Gmail
>> (even if you have configured Gmail to know the other address is yours, too).
>>
>> I use my ISP's SMTP server to work around that.
> 
> Another trick that should work:
> 
> If you run git send-email in a repo with a different user.email
> config, it should
> add the original From to the email's body, as it will detect you're submitting
> patches on behalf of "someone else".

Or I can just patch in the From field myself before sending , just like
Cc: and SoB ?

Geert Uytterhoeven Sept. 19, 2018, 9:38 a.m. UTC | #7

Hi Marek,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 11:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>>> Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
> >>>> have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
> >>>> from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
> >>
> >> I'm the one who enhanced checkpatch with the new check ;-)
> >>
> >>>> the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
> >>> send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?
> >>
> >> Git send-email uses the address from user.email in gitconfig, just
> >> like git commit.
> >>
> >> However, I see you're using Gmail's SMTP server. That one replaces the
> >> From-line in the header by your primary email address as configured in Gmail
> >> (even if you have configured Gmail to know the other address is yours, too).
> >>
> >> I use my ISP's SMTP server to work around that.
> >
> > Another trick that should work:
> >
> > If you run git send-email in a repo with a different user.email
> > config, it should
> > add the original From to the email's body, as it will detect you're submitting
> > patches on behalf of "someone else".
>
> Or I can just patch in the From field myself before sending , just like
> Cc: and SoB ?

You can try, but I'm afraid git is too smart, and will remove it as considered
unneeded.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

Simon Horman Sept. 19, 2018, 9:41 a.m. UTC | #8

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:52:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:23 PM Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
> >>> parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
> >>> PMICs -- da9063 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
> >>> to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
> >>> PMIC to deassert the IRQ.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Simon Horman <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]
> >>> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[e-mail]>
> >>> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]> (on Koelsch)
> >>> ---
> >>> V2: - Replace the DT shared IRQ check loop with memcmp()
> >>>     - Send the I2C message to deassert the IRQ line to all PMICs
> >>>       in the list with shared IRQ line instead of just one
> >>>     - Add comment that this works only in case all the PMICs are
> >>>       on the same I2C bus
> >>> V3: - Drop the addr = 0x00 init
> >>>     - Drop reinit of argsa in rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk
> >>> V4: - Squash regulator_quirk on single line
> >>>     - Drop !np check in for_each_matching_node_and_match()
> >>>     - Use argsa in of_irq_parse_one
> >>> V5: - Check kzalloc failure
> >>>     - Rename da...._msgs to da...._msg
> >>>     - Don't reinit quirk->shared
> >>> V6: - Skip invalid entries instead of aborting on them
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > Thanks, applied for v4.20.
> > 
> > Marek, these days checkpatch complains if the author of the patch does not
> > have a signed offline, and the inconsistency between your
> > from and Sign-off the email address trips that check.
> > 
> > Could you consider either a) enhancing checkpatch or b) using
> > the same address twice? No need to take any action for this patch.
> 
> Sure, do you know if there's some tweak to git config , so git
> send-email uses the m.v+foo@ From address ?

Some sort of local config change sounds good to me.

As per the follow-up from Geert, it may require some experimentation.

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c
index 21ebc7678ffd..8e50daa99151 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c
@@ -23,11 +23,12 @@ 
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
 #include <linux/notifier.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_irq.h>
 #include <linux/mfd/da9063/registers.h>
 
-
 #define IRQC_BASE		0xe61c0000
 #define IRQC_MONITOR		0x104	/* IRQn Signal Level Monitor Register */
 
@@ -36,34 +37,45 @@ 
 /* start of DA9210 System Control and Event Registers */
 #define DA9210_REG_MASK_A		0x54
 
+struct regulator_quirk {
+	struct list_head		list;
+	const struct of_device_id	*id;
+	struct of_phandle_args		irq_args;
+	struct i2c_msg			i2c_msg;
+	bool				shared;	/* IRQ line is shared */
+};
+
+static LIST_HEAD(quirk_list);
 static void __iomem *irqc;
 
 /* first byte sets the memory pointer, following are consecutive reg values */
 static u8 da9063_irq_clr[] = { DA9063_REG_IRQ_MASK_A, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff };
 static u8 da9210_irq_clr[] = { DA9210_REG_MASK_A, 0xff, 0xff };
 
-static struct i2c_msg da9xxx_msgs[3] = {
-	{
-		.addr = 0x58,
-		.len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_irq_clr),
-		.buf = da9063_irq_clr,
-	}, {
-		.addr = 0x68,
-		.len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9210_irq_clr),
-		.buf = da9210_irq_clr,
-	}, {
-		.addr = 0x70,
-		.len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9210_irq_clr),
-		.buf = da9210_irq_clr,
-	},
+static struct i2c_msg da9063_msg = {
+	.len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_irq_clr),
+	.buf = da9063_irq_clr,
+};
+
+static struct i2c_msg da9210_msg = {
+	.len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9210_irq_clr),
+	.buf = da9210_irq_clr,
+};
+
+static const struct of_device_id rcar_gen2_quirk_match[] = {
+	{ .compatible = "dlg,da9063", .data = &da9063_msg },
+	{ .compatible = "dlg,da9210", .data = &da9210_msg },
+	{},
 };
 
 static int regulator_quirk_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
 				  unsigned long action, void *data)
 {
+	struct regulator_quirk *pos, *tmp;
 	struct device *dev = data;
 	struct i2c_client *client;
 	static bool done;
+	int ret;
 	u32 mon;
 
 	if (done)
@@ -80,17 +92,20 @@  static int regulator_quirk_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
 	client = to_i2c_client(dev);
 	dev_dbg(dev, "Detected %s\n", client->name);
 
-	if ((client->addr == 0x58 && !strcmp(client->name, "da9063")) ||
-	    (client->addr == 0x68 && !strcmp(client->name, "da9210")) ||
-	    (client->addr == 0x70 && !strcmp(client->name, "da9210"))) {
-		int ret, len;
+	/*
+	 * Send message to all PMICs that share an IRQ line to deassert it.
+	 *
+	 * WARNING: This works only if all the PMICs are on the same I2C bus.
+	 */
+	list_for_each_entry(pos, &quirk_list, list) {
+		if (!pos->shared)
+			continue;
 
-		/* There are two DA9210 on Stout, one on the other boards. */
-		len = of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,stout") ? 3 : 2;
+		dev_info(&client->dev, "clearing %s@0x%02x interrupts\n",
+			 pos->id->compatible, pos->i2c_msg.addr);
 
-		dev_info(&client->dev, "clearing da9063/da9210 interrupts\n");
-		ret = i2c_transfer(client->adapter, da9xxx_msgs, len);
-		if (ret != len)
+		ret = i2c_transfer(client->adapter, &pos->i2c_msg, 1);
+		if (ret != 1)
 			dev_err(&client->dev, "i2c error %d\n", ret);
 	}
 
@@ -103,6 +118,11 @@  static int regulator_quirk_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
 remove:
 	dev_info(dev, "IRQ2 is not asserted, removing quirk\n");
 
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &quirk_list, list) {
+		list_del(&pos->list);
+		kfree(pos);
+	}
+
 	done = true;
 	iounmap(irqc);
 	return 0;
@@ -114,7 +134,12 @@  static struct notifier_block regulator_quirk_nb = {
 
 static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
 {
-	u32 mon;
+	struct regulator_quirk *quirk, *pos, *tmp;
+	struct of_phandle_args *argsa, *argsb;
+	const struct of_device_id *id;
+	struct device_node *np;
+	u32 mon, addr;
+	int ret;
 
 	if (!of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,koelsch") &&
 	    !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,lager") &&
@@ -122,22 +147,78 @@  static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
 	    !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,gose"))
 		return -ENODEV;
 
+	for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, rcar_gen2_quirk_match, &id) {
+		if (!of_device_is_available(np))
+			break;
+
+		ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", &addr);
+		if (ret)	/* Skip invalid entry and continue */
+			continue;
+
+		quirk = kzalloc(sizeof(*quirk), GFP_KERNEL);
+		if (!quirk) {
+			ret = -ENOMEM;
+			goto err_mem;
+		}
+
+		argsa = &quirk->irq_args;
+		memcpy(&quirk->i2c_msg, id->data, sizeof(quirk->i2c_msg));
+
+		quirk->id = id;
+		quirk->i2c_msg.addr = addr;
+
+		ret = of_irq_parse_one(np, 0, argsa);
+		if (ret) {	/* Skip invalid entry and continue */
+			kfree(quirk);
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		list_for_each_entry(pos, &quirk_list, list) {
+			argsb = &pos->irq_args;
+
+			if (argsa->args_count != argsb->args_count)
+				continue;
+
+			ret = memcmp(argsa->args, argsb->args,
+				     argsa->args_count *
+				     sizeof(argsa->args[0]));
+			if (!ret) {
+				pos->shared = true;
+				quirk->shared = true;
+			}
+		}
+
+		list_add_tail(&quirk->list, &quirk_list);
+	}
+
 	irqc = ioremap(IRQC_BASE, PAGE_SIZE);
-	if (!irqc)
-		return -ENOMEM;
+	if (!irqc) {
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+		goto err_mem;
+	}
 
 	mon = ioread32(irqc + IRQC_MONITOR);
 	if (mon & REGULATOR_IRQ_MASK) {
 		pr_debug("%s: IRQ2 is not asserted, not installing quirk\n",
 			 __func__);
-		iounmap(irqc);
-		return 0;
+		ret = 0;
+		goto err_free;
 	}
 
 	pr_info("IRQ2 is asserted, installing da9063/da9210 regulator quirk\n");
 
 	bus_register_notifier(&i2c_bus_type, &regulator_quirk_nb);
 	return 0;
+
+err_free:
+	iounmap(irqc);
+err_mem:
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &quirk_list, list) {
+		list_del(&pos->list);
+		kfree(pos);
+	}
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 arch_initcall(rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk);