[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YaYhtFnHlZob9s0J@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:05:56 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: tegra210-quad: add acpi support
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 01:50:07AM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
> > That said frankly I'd expect this handling of ACPI reset to be pushed into the
> > reset code, it's obviously not good to be open coding this in drivers when this
> > looks like it's completely generic to any ACPI object so shouldn't be being
> > open coded in individual driers especially with the ifdefery. Shouldn't the
> > reset API be able to figure out that an object with _RST has a reset control
> > and provide access to it through the reset API?
> Common reset apis are not handling _RST. Each driver is implementing
> _RST method in ACPI and calling from drivers.
I can see that. What I'm saying is that this seems bad and we should
instead be implementing this in common code.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists