On Fri 13 Nov 2020 at 16:04, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 00:00 +0100, Amjad Ouled-Ameur wrote: >> The current reset framework API does not allow to release what is done by >> reset_control_reset(), IOW decrement triggered_count. Add the new >> reset_control_rearm() call to do so. >> >> When reset_control_reset() has been called once, the counter >> triggered_count, in the reset framework, is incremented i.e the resource >> under the reset is in-use and the reset should not be done again. >> reset_control_rearm() would be the way to state that the resource is >> no longer used and, that from the caller's perspective, the reset can be >> fired again if necessary. >> >> Signed-off-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reported-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Change since v1: [0] >> * Renamed the new call from reset_control_(array_)resettable to >> reset_control_(array_)rearm >> * Open-coded reset_control_array_rearm to check for errors before >> decrementing triggered_count because we cannot roll back in case an >> error occurs while decrementing one of the rstc. >> * Reworded the new call's description. > > Thank you, applied to reset/next. Hi Philipp, Would it be possible to get an immutable branch/tag with this ? It would allow to move forward on the USB side, without waiting for the next rc1. Thx Jerome > > regards > Philipp
