The 05/07/2021 09:32, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, at 19:54, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 06:03:12PM +0800, Steven Lee wrote:
> > > + if (info) {
> > > + if (info->flag & PROBE_AFTER_ASSET_DEASSERT) {
> > > + sdc->rst = devm_reset_control_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> >
> > Please use devm_reset_control_get_exclusive() or
> > devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive().
> >
> > > + if (!IS_ERR(sdc->rst)) {
> >
> > Please just return errors here instead of ignoring them.
> > The reset_control_get_optional variants return NULL in case the
> > device node doesn't contain a resets phandle, in case you really
> > consider this reset to be optional even though the flag is set?
>
> It feels like we should get rid of the flag and leave it to the
> devicetree.
>
Do you mean adding a flag, for instance, "mmc-reset" in the
device tree and call of_property_read_bool() in aspeed_sdc_probe()?
> I'm still kind of surprised it's not something we want to do for the
> 2400 and 2500 as well.
>
Per discussion with the chip designer, AST2400 and AST2500 doesn't need
this implementation since the chip design is different to AST2600.
> Andrew
