On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:25:04PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> The reset control API has two modes: exclusive access, where the driver
> expects to have full and immediate control over the state of the reset
> line, and shared (clock-like) access, where drivers only request reset
> deassertion while active, but don't care about the state of the reset line
> while inactive.
>
> Commit a53e35db70d1 ("reset: Ensure drivers are explicit when requesting
> reset lines") started to transition the reset control request API calls
> to explicitly state whether the driver needs exclusive or shared reset
> control behavior.
>
> This series converts all drivers that currently implicitly request
> exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is,
> for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch:
Hey, I'm all for large api changes, but this really seems ackward, isn't
there a "better" way to do this?
Why not, as you say the "implicit" request is exclusive, just leave
everything alone and state that the "reset_control_get()" call is
exclusive and make the shared one the "odd" usage as that seems to not
be the normal case.
That should be a much smaller patch right?
That way you don't break everything here, and require 100+ patches to
just change the name of a function from one to another and do nothing
else.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
