Hi Eugeniy, On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 13:54 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote: [...] > > The documentation states that calling reset_control_assert "on an > > exclusive reset controller guarantees that the reset will be asserted." > > Since this is clearly not the case with this driver, it is appropriate > > to keep returning an error in this case. > > > > If there is a driver that requests an exclusive reset control, calls > > reset_control_assert, and then checks the error value to see whether > > asserting the reset succeeded, it should be made aware that > > we couldn't actually assert the reset line as requested. If the driver > > can continue operation even though the reset line was not asserted, > > it should ignore the error. > > > > So if you need to hide this error, I'd like to know the actual case that > > is fixed by this, to see if we can't fix it in a better way. > > Ok, I can drop it in my case as it will work fine with certain drivers: > (several drivers use shared reset control, other drivers use exclusive reset > control but don't check reset_control_assert() return value) > > I simply want to say that this wouldn't work in all cases (without changes > in driver which use reset control). Ok, if there is ever such a case, please let me know. regards Philipp
