On 29/01/2024 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Devices sharing a reset GPIO could use the reset framework for > coordinated handling of that shared GPIO line. We have several cases of > such needs, at least for Devicetree-based platforms. > > If Devicetree-based device requests a reset line, while "resets" > Devicetree property is missing but there is a "reset-gpios" one, > instantiate a new "reset-gpio" platform device which will handle such > reset line. This allows seamless handling of such shared reset-gpios > without need of changing Devicetree binding [1]. > > To avoid creating multiple "reset-gpio" platform devices, store the > Devicetree "reset-gpios" GPIO specifiers used for new devices on a > linked list. Later such Devicetree GPIO specifier (phandle to GPIO > controller, GPIO number and GPIO flags) is used to check if reset > controller for given GPIO was already registered. > > If two devices have conflicting "reset-gpios" property, e.g. with > different ACTIVE_xxx flags, this would allow to spawn two separate > "reset-gpio" devices, where the second would fail probing on busy GPIO > request. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YXi5CUCEi7YmNxXM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1] > Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@xxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Are any reviewers comments unresolved or unsatisfied with the discussion? I have impression that discussion bikeschedded a bit towards NONEXCLUSIVE, which was later clarified that NONEXCLUSIVE is not the solution for this problem, but maybe we miss some final Ack? Anyone is here unhappy with this solution? To remind: this is a generic solution solving at least two people's problems, probably more. It does not solve all people's problem, but I doubt anyone has enough of time to satisfy all people... Best regards, Krzysztof
