> > Another question is... why do we need to check pd->dev.of_node here? > > If CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is set, we always try to get the reset > > controller node, so drv_data->rstc is either going to be a valid > > pointer, or it's going to be an error pointer - neither > > reset_control_get() nor devm_reset_control_get return NULL. > > Hmmm, right. I'll fix this in a later version. > > Wolfram, do you want me to respin the patch making use of > reset_get_optional introduced by Philip in its other mail? I think I'd prefer both issues fixed with one patch like in "fixing up reset controller handling". And you might want to give a Tested- or Reviewed-by tag to Philipp's patch if you are going to use it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
