On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 14:31 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: [...] > > > > + eq = (args2.np == args.np && > > > > + args2.args_count == args.args_count && > > > > + !memcmp(args2.args, args.args, > > > > + args.args_count * sizeof(args.args[0]))); > > > > As there's at least one other function in -next that compares of_phandle_args, > > I will add a helper of_phandle_args_eq(). > > > > > > + of_node_put(args2.np); > > > > + if (eq) > > > > > > Emitting a loud warning here could be very helpful if it contains > > > both the reset controller node and the reset index, as well as the > > Actually on DT-based systems, the index is a driver-specific > implementation detail, and may differ from the actual reset specifier in DT. > E.g. on R-Car systems, DT uses a human-readable representation matching > the datasheet, while internally, the driver uses a packed representation. > Hence printing the index may confuse the user. > > For lookup-based systems, this is different. Correct. I'm so used to #reset-cells = <1>, it's hard to remember the exceptions. So let's not try to print indices or args. > > > consumer nodes: node and node2. > > > > Indeed, will do, also for lookup resets. > > > > We already have of_print_phandle_args(), but that is a bit inflexible. > > Adding support for "%pOFa" looks like the modern thing to do. > > Scrap that: of_phandle_args is not derived from a device_node, so %pOFa > is not appropriate (and would crash instead of fall back to a pointer before > %pOFa support is implemented). And without more users, it doesn't make much > sense to go for a new type (e.g. "%pOA")... > > Actually, printing the full reset specifier is not needed. A message like > > /soc/pwm@e6e31000 and /soc/pwm@e6e30000 share a reset on > /soc/clock-controller@e6150000 > > should give sufficient clue to the user. Yes. You could also pass con_id into __of_reset_is_exclusive and print that. It would be nice to indicate which consumer requested exclusive access. regards Philipp
