[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <302ef1e3-30c3-68f8-7957-90c68be9d343@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:33:05 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/36] i2c: tegra: Use reset_control_reset()
07.09.2020 11:13, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:51 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Use a single reset_control_reset() instead of assert/deasset couple in
>> order to make code cleaner a tad. Note that the reset_control_reset()
>> uses 1 microsecond delay instead of 2 that was used previously, but this
>> shouldn't matter. In addition don't ignore potential error of the reset
>> control by emitting a noisy warning if it fails, which shouldn't ever
>> happen in practice.
>
> Still it's not clear if you check the datasheet or not. Some
> elaboration would be good to have.
I'll update the commit message with more details. Thanks!
> ...
>
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
>
> Why screaming here? Wouldn't be dev_warn() enough?
The error condition is an indicator of a severe problem because the
reset shouldn't ever fail in practice, hence screaming is a preferred
behavour. I'll a add a comment to the code, telling this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists