[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1502470241.2310.29.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:50:41 +0200
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To: Alexandru Gagniuc <alex.g@...ptrum.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] reset: socfpga: use the reset-simple driver
Hi Alexandru,
thank you for the comments.
On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 09:28 -0700, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> On 08/11/2017 06:06 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -113,8 +137,33 @@ static int reset_simple_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > data->rcdev.ops = &reset_simple_ops;
> > > > data->rcdev.of_node = dev->of_node;
> >
> > > > - if (devdata)
> > + if (devdata == &reset_simple_socfpga) {
>
> This sort of special-case handling opens the gate to adding special-case
> handling for any new device, which somewhat defeats the purpose of a
> generic driver.
That is why I initially only unified the reset ops and not the whole
platorm driver.
I could partially revert this latest change and keep the reset-socfpga
driver, just reusing the reset-simple ops to avoid potential "quirk
creep" in the reset-simple driver.
Or I could drop the #reset-cells warning below and just read the
altr,modrst-offset property for any reset controller, to avoid the
special-case.
> > + u32 modrst_offset;
> > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The binding was mainlined without the required property.
> > > > + * Do not continue, when we encounter an old DT.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!of_find_property(dev->of_node, "#reset-cells", NULL)) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "%pOF missing #reset-cells property\n",
> > > > + dev->of_node);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
>
> Is the check still required in this context, since
> (devm_)reset_control_get() complains really loudly if #reset-cells is
> missing?
I'm fine with removing this. Ideally, this is something that the device
tree compiler should check already.
> > +
> > > > + if (of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "altr,modrst-offset",
> > > > + &modrst_offset)) {
> > > > + dev_warn(dev, "missing altr,modrst-offset property, assuming 0x10!\n");
> > > > + modrst_offset = 0x10;
> > + }
>
> This can be a generic "reg-offset" property. If and until the
> devicetrees are updated, "altr,modrst-offset" would also have to be read
> as an alternative.
Possibly. Adding new device tree bindings is a separate discussion.
> Since a platform data already exists, reset_simple_devdata could be a
> better place to store the default offset of 0x10 for socfpga.
I'll change this as you suggest.
regards
Philipp
Powered by blists - more mailing lists