On Fr, 2025-02-14 at 17:13 +0000, Wilson Ding wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:54 AM > > To: Wilson Ding <dingwei@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: andrew@xxxxxxx; gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxx; > > sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > > conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; Sanghoon Lee <salee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Geethasowjanya > > Akula <gakula@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH 1/4] [PATCH 1/4] reset: simple: Add syscon > > device compatible > > > > On Do, 2025-02-13 at 22:58 -0800, Wilson Ding wrote: > > > Introduce the new ops for updating reset line and getting status. > > > Thus, the reset controller can be accessed through either direct I/O > > > or regmap interfaces. > > > > Please don't add a new layer of function pointer indirection, just add a new > > struct reset_control_ops for the regmap variant. > > > > If just adding a new struct reset_control_ops for the regmap variant, almost > all the functions will be duplicated for regmap variant. > Besides reset_simple_regmap_assert/deassert(), we also need to have the > regmap version of reset_simple_update(). Yes. You could also duplicate/fold update() into assert/deassert(). It is trivial enough and the compiler will do that anyway. > Since reset_simple_reset() invokes > reset_simple_regmap_assert/deassert(), it also needs to be > duplicated. That one could go through the data->rcdev.ops->assert/deassert function pointers and be reused. But I wonder if that one function is worth the added complexity. > In this case, there will be too many redundant codes in this file. I doubt if > it is worth to use the reset simple code. Maybe it's better to fork a new file > for the syscon device, such as 'reset-simple-syscon.c'. What do you say? That sounds sensible to me. regards Philipp
