> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 29 November 2021 17:57 > To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx>; Philipp Zabel > <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: tegra210-quad: add acpi support > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:09:30AM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote: > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > > > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_evaluate_object(ACPI_HANDLE(tqspi->dev), > > > > + "_RST", NULL, NULL))) > > > > + dev_err(tqspi->dev, "failed to reset device\n"); #endif > > > > What happens when this runs on a DT system? > > > For a DT system reset handle would be present and this code will not > > run > > This code is really unclearly structured, the early return doesn't match the > normal kernel style and the ifdefs aren't helping with clarity. Please > restructure it so it's clear that *both* cases have checks for the correct > firmware type being present. I will move each reset method into their own function for readability. > > That said frankly I'd expect this handling of ACPI reset to be pushed into the > reset code, it's obviously not good to be open coding this in drivers when this > looks like it's completely generic to any ACPI object so shouldn't be being > open coded in individual driers especially with the ifdefery. Shouldn't the > reset API be able to figure out that an object with _RST has a reset control > and provide access to it through the reset API? Common reset apis are not handling _RST. Each driver is implementing _RST method in ACPI and calling from drivers.
