lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hwmon: (aspeed-pwm-tacho) Deassert reset in probe
From
Date
On 10/31/2017 07:04 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 10/31/2017 06:34 PM, Joel Stanley wrote:
>>> The ASPEED SoC must deassert a reset in order to use the PWM/tach
>>> peripheral.
>>>
>>> The device tree bindings are updated to document the resets phandle, and
>>> the example is updated to match what is expected for both the reset and
>>> clock phandle. Note that the bindings should have always had the reset
>>> controller, as the hardware is unusable without it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
>>
>> Presumably the driver is being used. This change makes it incompatible with
>> existing users. This is unacceptable; after all, it is possible that the
>> device is taken out of reset by ROMMON or BIOS.
>>
>> On top of that, the reset controller code is quite strict and issues a
>> backtrace if CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is not enabled. Yet, there is no
>> dependency added on RESET_CONTROLLER. You might want to consider making
>> the new control optional and using devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive().
>>
>> The DT change should be a separate patch.
>>
>> More comments below.
>
> [..]
>
>>> return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(hwmon);
>>> }
>>> +static int aspeed_pwm_tacho_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct aspeed_pwm_tacho_data *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> +
>>> + reset_control_deassert(priv->rst);
>>
>> This seems to be quite pointless. Also, did you test this code ?
>>
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static const struct of_device_id of_pwm_tacho_match_table[] = {
>>> { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-pwm-tacho", },
>>> { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-pwm-tacho", },
>>> @@ -969,6 +989,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_pwm_tacho_match_table);
>>> static struct platform_driver aspeed_pwm_tacho_driver = {
>>> .probe = aspeed_pwm_tacho_probe,
>>> + .probe = aspeed_pwm_tacho_remove,
>
> Also, this cant be right (should be .remove)?
>

Nice. Makes me really wonder what this code would do. Does this even compile ?

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-01 03:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog