Le Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 02:37:35PM +0100, John Keeping a écrit : > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:05:54AM +0200, LABBE Corentin wrote: > > Le Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:04:24PM +0100, John Keeping a écrit : > > > On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 06:59:38PM +0000, Corentin Labbe wrote: > > > > reset could be handled by PM functions. > > > > > > Is there any further rationale for this? > > > > > > After this change there is no longer a guaranteed reset pulse on probe > > > since the reset control may already be de-asserted. This is normally > > > the most important case for a reset as it's the only time when the state > > > of the hardware is unknown. > > > > > > The original use of devm_add_action_or_reset() seems a bit weird already > > > since there doesn't seem to be any need to assert reset when the driver > > > is unloaded. > > > > > > > I am not an hw engineer, so my knowledge on reset is low. > > So why not having a reset pulse on probe is a problem ? > > The point of the reset is to bring the hardware back to a known state. > Since we don't know what state the hardware will be in following the > bootloader or previous OS, I think the reset in probe is the only place > that it is important. > > If this patch isn't fixing anything, I suggest just dropping it. Thanks for the explanation, I will re-add the reset at probe.
