Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] reset: brcmstb rescal: implement {de}assert() instead of reset()

[Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>]

On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 11:21 -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:05 AM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 14:17 -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > > Before, only control_reset() was implemented.  However, the reset core only
> > > invokes control_reset() once in its lifetime.  Because we need it to invoke
> > > control_reset() again after resume out of S2 or S3, we have switched to
> > > putting the reset functionality into the control_deassert() method and
> > > having an empty control_assert() method.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>
> > 
> > You are switching to the wrong abstraction to work around a deficiency
> > of the reset controller framework. Instead, it would be better to allow
> > to "reactivate" shared pulsed resets so they can be triggered again.
> 
> True.
> > 
> > Could you please have a look at [1], which tries to implement this with
> > a new API call, and check if this can fix your problem? If so, it would
> > be great if you could coordinate with Amjad to see this fixed in the
> > core.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201001132758.12280-1-aouledameur@baylibre.com/
> 
> Yes, this would work for our usage.  Amjad please let me know if I can
> help here.  The only "nit" I have is that I favor the name 'unreset'
> over 'resettable' but truly I don't care one way or the other.

Both unreset and resettable are adjectives, maybe it would be better to
have an imperative verb like the other API functions. I would have liked
reset_control_trigger/rearm as a pair, but I can't find anything I like
that fits with the somewhat unfortunate reset_control_reset name in my
mind.
In that sense, I don't have a preference one way or the other either.

regards
Philipp