Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] reset: Make optional stuff optional for all users | From | Philipp Zabel <> | Date | Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:27:51 +0200 |
| |
Hi Andy,
thank you for the patch.
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 15:26 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > There is Device Tree oriented check for optional resource. Of course > it will fail on non-DT platforms. > > Remove this check to make things optional for all users. > > Fixes: bb475230b8e5 ("reset: make optional functions really optional") > Cc: Ramiro Oliveira <Ramiro.Oliveira@synopsys.com> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > > The reset framework is too Device Tree oriented, and who knows what > the logic was behind the commit which introduced devm_reset_*() > functions without thinking out of the DT box.
At the time, there was nothing outside of the box to describe reset lines, and as far as I am aware there still isn't, so the devm_reset_* should behave as if the reset line is not specified in the non-DT case. Returning -EINVAL was reasonable in that case, before the API was changed to describe unavailable, optional reset controls as rstc = NULL.
> This commit fixes almost all Intel newest boards that have no legacy > UART since UART driver started using this DT-centric framework.
Is this is about 8250_dw.c? Unfortunately it sometimes takes a little while for me to get updated on the big picture, as I only get the actual reset driver and framework patches in my inbox. Usually I only see the reset consumer changes when I actively look for them.
But the fault in this case was is with me not considering all possible code paths influenced by commit bb475230b8e5, in the configurations that I can't test myself.
> drivers/reset/core.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c > index f1e5e65388bb..62314e663f29 100644 > --- a/drivers/reset/core.c > +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c > @@ -331,9 +331,6 @@ struct reset_control *__of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node,
Ideally, __of_reset_control_get would not be called at all in the non-DT case. I'll change that in the next round, but for now I'd prefer a small fix in place.
> int rstc_id; > int ret; > > - if (!node) > - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > -
This should be
if (!node) return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
instead. Can you confirm this works for Intel boards with DW UART? I can fix it up when applying if you agree.
> if (id) { > index = of_property_match_string(node, > "reset-names", id);
regards Philipp
| |