From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:38:29 +0200 Message-ID: <55ACB385.50606@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> <55A32EC8.4080309@atmel.com> <20150720075231.GQ28632@lukather> <55ACB2C9.5070701@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55ACB2C9.5070701@atmel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Josh Wu , Alexandre Belloni , 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 List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Le 20/07/2015 10:35, Josh Wu a =E9crit : > Hi, Maxime >=20 > On 7/20/2015 3:52 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Josh, >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:21:44AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >>> 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 func= tion 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= new chip, >>>>>>> the structure like you said is needed. >>>>>> We managed to avoid using of_machine_is_compatible() in all the = at91 >>>>>> drivers. I'd like to keep it that way. It was painful enough to = remove >>>>>> all those cpu_is_at91xxx calls. >>>>> That's your call... >>>>> >>>>>> Also, using it is trying to match strings and will result in lon= ger 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 sama5d3= _restart) >>> for the condition. >> I'm not just that's been an option in our discussion so far. >> >> Nicolas said that he was agreeing with me, but at the same time said >> the complete opposite of what I was arguing for, so I'm not really >> sure what's really on his mind, but the two options that were >> discussed were to remove that test, and either: >> >> - Use of_device_is_compatible to prevent the loop execution >=20 > Thank you for explaining, it is clear to me. >=20 > I'll take this above option. As the of_device_is_compatible() almost=20 > same as of_match_node()/of_match_device(). Except that=20 > of_device_is_compatible() is more efficient (in this case It calls=20 > __of_device_is_compatible() directly) than of_match_node/of_match_dev= ice. Yes, I was pushing for this solution... >> - define a structure with a flag to say whether you need the ram >> controller quirk or not, and test that flag. and not for this one, that's all. I wrongly added the name of the improper function to use too quickly picked from your discussion with Alex. So, all is clear now. Bye, --=20 Nicolas Ferre