From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.zabel@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:57:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] reset: add reset-simple to unify socfpga, stm32, sunxi, and zx2967 In-Reply-To: References: <20170811130618.3676-1-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20170811130618.3676-2-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <1502467044.2310.21.camel@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 23:51 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > +static int reset_simple_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > +???????struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > +???????const struct of_device_id *of_id = > > +???????????????of_match_device(of_match_ptr(reset_simple_dt_ids), dev); > > +???????const struct reset_simple_devdata *devdata = of_id->data; > > Just use of_device_get_match_data(). Will do that, thanks. > > +struct reset_simple_data { > > +???????spinlock_t??????????????????????lock; > > +???????void __iomem????????????????????*membase; > > +???????struct reset_controller_dev?????rcdev; > > +???????bool????????????????????????????inverted; > > You should document this option. "Inverted" by itself does not > say a whole lot, as there is no mention about what the normal > or non-inverted behavior is. Is the reset active low (assert > reset when bit is cleared)? Or active high (assert reset when > bit is set)? You are right. Also, maybe I should rename this to "bool active_low;" to avoid confusion where it is used. regards Philipp