Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] reset: Leverage revocable for accessing struct reset_controller_dev

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

On Mo, 2026-10-19 at 11:53 +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 05:49:11AM -0400, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c
> > > index 38e189d04d09..788a235c3965 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/reset/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c
> > > @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
> > >  #include <linux/property.h>
> > >  #include <linux/reset.h>
> > >  #include <linux/reset-controller.h>
> > > +#include <linux/revocable.h>
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > -#include <linux/srcu.h>
> > > 
> > >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(reset_list_mutex);
> > >  static LIST_HEAD(reset_controller_list);
> > > @@ -37,9 +37,7 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(reset_gpio_ida);
> > > 
> > >  /**
> > >   * struct reset_control - a reset control
> > > - * @rcdev: a pointer to the reset controller device
> > > - *         this reset control belongs to
> > > - * @srcu: protects the rcdev pointer from removal during consumer access
> > > + * @rev: revocable handle for accessing the reset controller device
> > 
> > Please call it "revocable". The name "rev" does not indicate what it is at all.
> > Same elsewhere if you call it the same.
> 
> Ack, I initially used "rev" to keep the lines shorter with the revocable
> APIs, but "rev" alone can indeed be confusing.  On the other hand, I feel
> "revocable" is a bit verbose and doesn't indicate which target object it
> protects.  How about calling it "rcdev_rev"?

I strongly associate "rev" with "revision".

I'd be fine with "rcdev_revocable" (in struct reset_control and
"revocable" in struct reset_controller_device).

regards
Philipp