On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:29:43PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 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.
The branch this is in will be the last PR, so if the patch is reworked
by tomorrow, I'll just replace it.
> Jason, have you re-created your for-next branch with all those patches?
> I'd like to give them a test if possible.
Yep. Give it a go.
thx,
Jason.
--
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
