[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbS6b9GW8HXmthOfaRPFMARMpyNGaR8He5BJbtfOXLMVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:31:06 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-dwapb: add optional reset
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org> wrote:
> Some platforms require reset to be released to allow register
> access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
Fair enough.
(...)
> + rst = devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(rst)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(rst) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return PTR_ERR(rst);
> + } else {
> + reset_control_deassert(rst);
> + gpio->rst = rst;
> + }
I do not see why any error other than -EPROBE_DEFER
should be ignored?
I guess the _optional API returns NULL if there is no
reset line so it should be fine to just return the error on
any error.
> + if (gpio->rst)
> + reset_control_assert(gpio->rst);
Is this the right way to handle an optional reset line?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists