On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 11:28:11AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> 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.
Did that.
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
