30.11.2021 16:05, Mark Brown пишет: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 01:50:07AM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote: > >>> 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. I see only two or three other drivers in kernel which do that. > I can see that. What I'm saying is that this seems bad and we should > instead be implementing this in common code. > The ifdefery, that this patch has, shouldn't be needed. We have a similar ACPI patch for Tegra I2C [1] and it doesn't have that. [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/1637859224-5179-1-git-send-email-akhilrajeev@xxxxxxxxxx/ I assume this patch could be reworked similarly to the I2C patch. Agree that should be better to have a common reset driver for ACPI instead of polluting each driver with a boilerplate code.
