Hi, On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 15:23 +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 22/05/17 12:23, Vivek Gautam wrote: > > Make use of reset_control_array_*() set of APIs to manage > > an array of reset controllers available with the device. > > > > Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c > > index e233dd5dcab3..668f5d3d3635 100644 > > --- a/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c > > +++ b/drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c > > @@ -124,8 +124,8 @@ struct tegra_powergate { > > unsigned int id; > > struct clk **clks; > > unsigned int num_clks; > > - struct reset_control **resets; > > - unsigned int num_resets; > > + struct reset_control *reset; > > + struct reset_control_array *resets; > > It's a shame we can't avoid this additional reset pointer, but maybe > there is no good alternative for now. So ... > > Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. I don't see a big functional difference between a reset_control_array and a reset_control, given that a single reset control bit already controls multiple reset lines on some devices. Maybe it would be preferable to let the reset_control_array_get functions return a struct reset_control that hides the array. I'll send a v5 to see if that would be sensible. regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html