From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:21:44 +0800 Message-ID: <55A32EC8.4080309@atmel.com> References: <1436436947-11210-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20150710060350.GA3127@piout.net> <559F7AC4.6050008@atmel.com> <20150710120907.GC3127@piout.net> <20150710123148.GA28632@lukather> <559FEED3.5080505@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from nasmtp01.atmel.com ([192.199.1.246]:4451 "EHLO DVREDG02.corp.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605AbbGMDWF (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:22:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <559FEED3.5080505@atmel.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Ferre , Maxime Ripard , Alexandre Belloni Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Guenter Roeck , Wei Yongjun , Ben Dooks , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Fabian Frederick , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 7/11/2015 12:12 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 10/07/2015 14:31, Maxime Ripard a =E9crit : >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 10/07/2015 at 15:56:52 +0800, Josh Wu wrote : >>>> I would agree with Maxime. Currently all latest chip reset functio= n is >>>> compatible with the atmel,sama5d3-rstc. >>>> So check compatible string is enough for now. >>>> But of cause if we have other incompatible reset in future with ne= w chip, >>>> the structure like you said is needed. >>> We managed to avoid using of_machine_is_compatible() in all the at9= 1 >>> drivers. I'd like to keep it that way. It was painful enough to rem= ove >>> all those cpu_is_at91xxx calls. >> That's your call... >> >>> Also, using it is trying to match strings and will result in longer= boot >>> times. >> Have you looked at the implementation of of_match_device? If that's >> really a concern to you, you should actually avoid it. > I agree: let's keep it simple and use of_match_device(). Ok. I will keep it as it is now: use the (match->data !=3D=20 sama5d3_restart) for the condition. About the of_match_device(), I prefer to keep not changing the code and= =20 still use of_match_node(). Since of_match_device() is a wrapper for the of_match_node(). And=20 dev->of_node and at91_reset_of_match is valid, so we can just use=20 of_match_node() directly. Is it sound okay for us? Best Regards, Josh Wu > > Bye,