Hello Sascha,
On 02.11.21 09:06, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 06:52:07PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> As documented in 90bdf1e5d1e4 ("mci: dw_mmc: match against StarFive MMC
>> compatibles"), it was intended for the reset to remain optional as to
>> not break existing users. Unfortunately, my later a3cf324593ea
>> ("mci: dw_mmc: add optional reset line") didn't heed that and made it
>> required, breaking SoCFPGA DW-MMC use as a result.
>>
>> Revert that line to fix the regression.
>>
>> Fixes: a3cf324593ea ("mci: dw_mmc: add optional reset line")
>> Reported-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
>> index b402090ab3cb..86c4f43e88f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
>> @@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ static int dw_mmc_probe(struct device_d *dev)
>>
>> rst = reset_control_get(dev, "reset");
>
> Philipp, the reset binding lists the reset-names property as optional.
> What's the expected behaviour of the reset_control_get() above when the
> reset-names property is not present in the device tree? Should it return
> an error or should it return the unnamed reset control?
can this revert still be applied for master? I'll look into reworking this
for next.
Cheers,
Ahmad
>
> Sascha
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
