From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dinh Nguyen Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCHv4 1/1] drivers/amba: add reset control to amba bus probe Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:42:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20190820145834.7301-1-dinguyen@kernel.org> <20190820145834.7301-2-dinguyen@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij , Philipp Zabel Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Rob Herring , Russell King , Frank Rowand , Kees Cook , Anton Vorontsov , Colin Cross , Tony Luck , Daniel Thompson , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Linux ARM List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 8/23/19 4:19 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dinh Nguyen wrote: > >> @@ -401,6 +402,26 @@ static int amba_device_try_add(struct amba_device *dev, struct resource *parent) >> ret = amba_get_enable_pclk(dev); >> if (ret == 0) { >> u32 pid, cid; >> + int count; >> + struct reset_control *rstc; >> + >> + /* >> + * Find reset control(s) of the amba bus and de-assert them. >> + */ >> + count = reset_control_get_count(&dev->dev); >> + while (count > 0) { >> + rstc = of_reset_control_get_shared_by_index(dev->dev.of_node, count - 1); >> + if (IS_ERR(rstc)) { >> + if (PTR_ERR(rstc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) >> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER; >> + else >> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Can't get amba reset!\n"); >> + break; >> + } >> + reset_control_deassert(rstc); >> + reset_control_put(rstc); >> + count--; >> + } > > I'm not normally a footprint person, but the looks of the stubs in > makes me suspicious whether this will have zero impact > in size on platforms without reset controllers. > > Can you just ls -al on the kernel without CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER > before and after this patch and ascertain that it has zero footprint effect? Thanks for the review. I checked it, and indeed, it does have a zero footprint effect. > > If it doesn't I'd sure like to break this into its own function and > stick a if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER)) return 0; > in there to make sure the compiler drops it. > > Also it'd be nice to get Philipp's ACK on the semantics, though they > look correct to me. > Dinh