On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:29:49PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > 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". You mean the of_node check and the use of reset_control_get_optional, right? > And you might want to give a Tested- or Reviewed-by tag to Philipp's > patch if you are going to use it. Yes, I will. I'll only have access to the hardware on monday though, so I won't be able to actually test it before then. Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
