From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.zabel@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:20:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2] ARC: HSDK: improve reset driver In-Reply-To: <1539784482.4199.35.camel@synopsys.com> References: <20180928162856.4726-1-Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com> <1539346114.6204.5.camel@pengutronix.de> <1539784482.4199.35.camel@synopsys.com> List-ID: Message-ID: <1539786031.4729.7.camel@pengutronix.de> To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org Hi Eugeniy, On Wed, 2018-10-17@13:54 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote: [...] > > The documentation states that calling reset_control_assert "on an > > exclusive reset controller guarantees that the reset will be asserted." > > Since this is clearly not the case with this driver, it is appropriate > > to keep returning an error in this case. > > > > If there is a driver that requests an exclusive reset control, calls > > reset_control_assert, and then checks the error value to see whether > > asserting the reset succeeded, it should be made aware that > > we couldn't actually assert the reset line as requested. If the driver > > can continue operation even though the reset line was not asserted, > > it should ignore the error. > > > > So if you need to hide this error, I'd like to know the actual case that > > is fixed by this, to see if we can't fix it in a better way. > > Ok, I can drop it in my case as it will work fine with certain drivers: > (several drivers use shared reset control, other drivers use exclusive reset > control but don't check reset_control_assert() return value) > > I simply want to say that this wouldn't work in all cases (without changes > in driver which use reset control). Ok, if there is ever such a case, please let me know. regards Philipp