Hi Sajida,
On Di, 2022-04-19 at 11:46 +0530, Sajida Bhanu (Temp) wrote:
[...]
> > > +static int sdhci_msm_gcc_reset(struct device *dev, struct sdhci_host *host)
> > > +{
> > > + struct reset_control *reset;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > No need to initialize ret.
> >
> > > +
> > > + reset = reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(reset))
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(reset),
> > > + "unable to acquire core_reset\n");
> > > +
> > > + if (!reset)
> > > + return ret;
> Here we are returning ret directly if reset is NULL , so ret
> initialization is required.
You are right. I would just "return 0;" here, but this is correct as
is.
> > > +
> > > + ret = reset_control_assert(reset);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "core_reset assert failed\n");
> > Missing reset_control_put(reset) in the error path.
> Sure will add
> >
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The hardware requirement for delay between assert/deassert
> > > + * is at least 3-4 sleep clock (32.7KHz) cycles, which comes to
> > > + * ~125us (4/32768). To be on the safe side add 200us delay.
> > > + */
> > > + usleep_range(200, 210);
> > > +
> > > + ret = reset_control_deassert(reset);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "core_reset deassert failed\n");
> > Same as above. Maybe make both ret = dev_err_probe() and goto ...
> In both cases error message is different so I think goto not good idea here.
You could goto after the error message. Either way is fine.
regards
Philipp
