From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757356AbdJKIbK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:31:10 -0400
Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:43699 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1757256AbdJKIbH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:31:07 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDZ7TntcA3lHrBFgxFfkB+uu+3XJe4o6HGXVSbGXRiYZC3HElhuVe9OU8hrMrgAL8eCSdPjIXI4zIku3PD87BE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171010212617.3397-1-atull@kernel.org>
References: <20171010212617.3397-1-atull@kernel.org>
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:31:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbS6b9GW8HXmthOfaRPFMARMpyNGaR8He5BJbtfOXLMVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-dwapb: add optional reset
To: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Hoan Tran <hotran@apm.com>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org> wrote:

> Some platforms require reset to be released to allow register
> access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>

Fair enough.

(...)
> +       rst = devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> +       if (IS_ERR(rst)) {
> +               if (PTR_ERR(rst) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> +                       return PTR_ERR(rst);
> +       } else {
> +               reset_control_deassert(rst);
> +               gpio->rst = rst;
> +       }

I do not see why any error other than -EPROBE_DEFER
should be ignored?

I guess the _optional API returns NULL if there is no
reset line so it should be fine to just return the error on
any error.

> +       if (gpio->rst)
> +               reset_control_assert(gpio->rst);

Is this the right way to handle an optional reset line?

Yours,
Linus Walleij