On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 06:35:10PM +0200, Emil Renner Berthing wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:24, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:03, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > > > + case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE: > > > > > > > > > > > > > + mask |= PAD_BIAS_MASK; > > > > > > > > > > > > Use it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > + value = (value & ~PAD_BIAS_MASK) | PAD_BIAS_DISABLE; > > > > > > > > > > > > ...here. Ditto for the similar cases in this function and elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > I don't follow. How do you want me to use mask? If I did value = > > > > > (value & ~mask) | PAD_BIAS_DISABLE; then I'd wipe the previous > > > > > configuration. Eg. suppose the first config is the drive strength and > > > > > second disables bias. Then on the 2nd loop mask = > > > > > PAD_DRIVE_STRENGTH_MASK | PAD_BIAS_MASK and the drive strength value > > > > > would be wiped. > > > > > > > > Collect masks and new values in temporary variables and apply them > > > > once after the loop is done, no? > > > > > > But that's exactly what the code does. It merges all the config > > > options into a single mask and value so we only need to do rmw on the > > > register once. > > > > Then masking the value makes no sense. > > What you should have is simply as > > > > mask |= FOO; > > value |= BAR; > > Yeah, but then we could get into weird states if the device tree > specifies both bias-disable and bias-pull-up by mistake. This code is > written so that only the last valid state is chosen. But shouldn't it be disallowed by: 1) DTC validator (Rob?) 2) GPIO / pin control (Linus, Bart?) ? ... > > > > > > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk); > > > > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > + reset_control_deassert(rst); > > > > > > > > > > > > Use devm_add_action_or_reset(). > > > > > > > > > > I don't see how that is better. > > > > > > > > Pity. The rule of thumb is to either try to use devm_*() everywhere in > > > > the probe, or don't use it at all. Above is the more-or-less standard > > > > pattern where devn_add_action_or_reset() is being used in the entire > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > Then I'd first need to call that and > > > > > check for errors, but just on the line below enabling the clock the > > > > > reset line is deasserted anyway, so then the action isn't needed any > > > > > longer. So that 3 lines of code for devm_add_action_or_reset + > > > > > lingering unneeded action or code to remove it again vs. just the line > > > > > above. > > > > > > > > Then don't use devm_*() at all. What's the point? > > > > > > I'm confused. So you wan't an unneeded action to linger because the > > > probe function temporarily asserts reset for 3 lines of code? > > > > I;m talking about clk_prepare_enable(). > > Ok, you wrote your comment under the reset_control_deassert call. How > would devm_add_action_or_reset for clk_prepare_enable work? It seems both are needed to be converted, otherwise _everything_ after reset_assert() should not be devm_*(). TL;DR: the rule is Allowed: devm_*() followed by non-devm_*() NOT allowed: devm_*() followed by non-devm_*() followed by devm_*() Of course, you may try to work the latter one, but it diminishes the whole idea behind it, that's why I told that may be not using devm_*() is the correct approach here and that what you meant (?). The example how to use above mentioned API, just grep for it. # See [1] for the sources of the used script $ gl4func.sh devm_add_action_or_reset clk_prepare_enable | wc -l 101 [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/gl4func.sh -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko