On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 25/04/17 12:06, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> On 04/25/2017 04:24 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> On 25/04/17 11:33, Philipp Zabel wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 11:05 +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>>> On 25/04/17 05:15, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>>>>> On 04/24/2017 06:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/04/17 12:21, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>>>>>>> Make use of reset_control_array_*() set of APIs to manage >>>>>>>> an array of reset controllers available with the device. >>>>>>> Before we apply this patch, I need to check to see if the order of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> resets managed by the PMC driver matter. Today the order of the >>>>>>> resets >>>>>>> is determined by the order they appear in the DT node and although >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> new APIs work in the same way they do not guarantee this. So let me >>>>>>> check to see if we can any concerns about ordering here. Otherwise >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be nice to use these APIs. >>>>>> Right, that will be perfect. >>>>> So I don't see any restrictions here and so I think this change is >>>>> fine. >>>> Thank you for checking. >>>> >>>>> BTW, for the DT case, is there any reason why we don't just say the >>>>> order will be determine by the order the resets are list in the DT >>>>> node? >>>> I'd rather not make any promises, so I don't have to care about keeping >>>> them. This makes it easier to think about and allows for more freedom in >>>> changing the core code if needed. >>>> >>>> What if in the future there is a use case for enabling a bunch of resets >>>> by flipping a number of bits in a single register at the same time? Or >>>> if people accidentally depend on the ordering when in reality there is a >>>> small delay necessary between assertions that just happens to be hidden >>>> by the framework overhead? >>>> >>>> If there is a use case for an array of reset controls that must be >>>> (de)asserted in a fixed order and doesn't need any delay between the >>>> steps and is not suitable to be described by named resets for some >>>> reason, we can discuss this. Until then, I'm happy that tegra pmc can >>>> handle arrays without any particular ordering. >>> OK, makes sense. >> >> Thanks Jon for testing this. > > Not tested yet :-) > > However, I will test this just to confirm. Are you planning on sending > out a v4 soon? Yes, I will send a v4 soon this week. Thanks Vivek -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
