Hi Philipp,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:45 PM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Do, 2024-04-18 at 14:26 +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > A typical code pattern for reset_control_deassert() call is to call it in
> > the _probe function and to call reset_control_assert() both from _probe
> > error path and from _remove function.
> >
> > Add helper function to replace this bolierplate piece of code. Calling
> > devm_reset_control_deassert() removes the need for calling
> > reset_control_assert() both in the probe()'s error path and in the
> > remove() function.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'm not sure this aligns well with the intended use of devres for
> resource acquisition and release.
>
> Note how there is no devm_clk_prepare_enable, devm_regulator_enable,
> devm_gpiod_set_value_cansleep, or devm_pwm_enable either.
>
> I've sent an alternative suggestion that adds
> devm_reset_control_get..._deasserted calls, similarly to the existing
> devm_clk_get..._enabled calls. Please let me know what you think.
Thank you, that sounds like a good alternative.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
