Am Montag, den 14.12.2015, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:41:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/reset.h b/include/linux/reset.h > > index c4c097d..1cca8ce 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/reset.h > > +++ b/include/linux/reset.h > > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ int reset_control_reset(struct reset_control *rstc); > > int reset_control_assert(struct reset_control *rstc); > > int reset_control_deassert(struct reset_control *rstc); > > int reset_control_status(struct reset_control *rstc); > > +int reset_control_assert_shared(struct reset_control *rstc); > > +int reset_control_deassert_shared(struct reset_control *rstc); > > Shouldn't that be handled in reset_control_get directly? This is about different expectations of the caller. A driver calling reset_control_assert expects the reset line to be asserted after the call. A driver calling reset_control_assert_shared just signals that it doesn't care about the state of the reset line anymore. We could just as well call the two new functions reset_control_deassert_get and reset_control_deassert_put. regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
