Hi Eugeniy,
On Mon, 2018-08-27 at 17:38 +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> As for today HSDK reset driver implements only
> .reset() callback.
>
> In case of driver which implements one of standard
> reset controller usage pattern
> (call *_deassert() in probe(), call *_assert() in remove())
> that leads to inoperability of this reset driver.
>
> Improve HSDK reset driver by calling .reset() callback inside of
> .assert()/.deassert() callbacks to avoid each reset controller
> user adaptation for work with both reset methods
> (reset() and .assert()/.deassert() pair)
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev at synopsys.com>
> ---
> drivers/reset/reset-hsdk.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/reset/reset-hsdk.c b/drivers/reset/reset-hsdk.c
> index 8bce391c6943..1fd91df91343 100644
> --- a/drivers/reset/reset-hsdk.c
> +++ b/drivers/reset/reset-hsdk.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ static int hsdk_reset_reset(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
>
> static const struct reset_control_ops hsdk_reset_ops = {
> .reset = hsdk_reset_reset,
> + .assert = hsdk_reset_reset,
This is incorrect for exclusive reset controls.
It will cause reset_control_assert() to return success for exclusive
reset controls, even though the .assert op failed to leave the reset
line asserted after the function returns.
While calling hsdk_reset_reset from .assert for shared reset controls
would be fine,?I don't see how this is necessary of useful.
If a consumer driver requires the reset to be asserted upon remove(), it
must not request a shared reset control anyway, because with shared
reset controls other drivers may keep the reset line deasserted
indefinitely.
> + .deassert = hsdk_reset_reset,
This should be fine. I wonder from time to time whether this should be
implemented in the core, in reset_control_deassert().
regards
Philipp
