Hello,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:43:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Jernej Skrabec wrote:
> > > @@ -371,6 +374,14 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > if (IS_ERR(pwm->clk))
> > > return PTR_ERR(pwm->clk);
> > >
> > > + if (pwm->data->has_reset) {
> > > + pwm->rst = devm_reset_control_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(pwm->rst))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(pwm->rst);
> > > +
> > > + reset_control_deassert(pwm->rst);
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I wonder why there is a need to track if a given chip needs a reset
> > line. I'd just use devm_reset_control_get_optional() and drop the
> > .has_reset member in struct sun4i_pwm_data.
>
> Because it's not optional for this platform, i.e. it won't work if
> the reset control (or clk, in the next patch) is somehow missing from
> the device tree.
If the device tree is wrong it is considered ok that the driver doesn't
behave correctly. So this is not a problem you need (or should) care
about.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
