Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth,
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:25:23 +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> + port->reset_gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(child,
> + "reset-gpios", 0, &flags);
> + if (gpio_is_valid(port->reset_gpio)) {
> + u32 reset_udelay = 20000;
> +
> + port->reset_active_low = flags & OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW;
> + port->reset_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL,
> + "pcie%d.%d-reset", port->port, port->lane);
> + of_property_read_u32(child, "reset-delay-us",
> + &reset_udelay);
> +
> + ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&pdev->dev,
> + port->reset_gpio, GPIOF_DIR_OUT, port->reset_name);
> + if (ret) {
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return ret;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + gpio_set_value(port->reset_gpio,
> + (port->reset_active_low) ? 1 : 0);
> + udelay(reset_udelay);
> + }
Sorry for raising this only now, but I think I would have preferred to
see this reset-gpios handling be moved into a separate sub-function.
The loop initializing each PCIe interface is already quite large, and I
believe moving this reset-gpios thing to a sub-function would have made
sense.
But well, the patches have been applied, and we can always adjust this
with a followup patch.
Jason, have you re-created your for-next branch with all those patches?
I'd like to give them a test if possible.
Thanks!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
