Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
References: <20201112230043.28987-1-aouledameur@baylibre.com>
 <0f679c62aa48603ea43a8fa4819d688baa802d73.camel@pengutronix.de>
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.10; emacs 27.1
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable
In-reply-to: <0f679c62aa48603ea43a8fa4819d688baa802d73.camel@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <1jima91e92.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:13:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


On Fri 13 Nov 2020 at 16:04, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 00:00 +0100, Amjad Ouled-Ameur wrote:
>> The current reset framework API does not allow to release what is done by
>> reset_control_reset(), IOW decrement triggered_count. Add the new
>> reset_control_rearm() call to do so.
>> 
>> When reset_control_reset() has been called once, the counter
>> triggered_count, in the reset framework, is incremented i.e the resource
>> under the reset is in-use and the reset should not be done again.
>> reset_control_rearm() would be the way to state that the resource is
>> no longer used and, that from the caller's perspective, the reset can be
>> fired again if necessary.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com>
>> Reported-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>> Change since v1: [0]
>> * Renamed the new call from reset_control_(array_)resettable to 
>> reset_control_(array_)rearm
>> * Open-coded reset_control_array_rearm to check for errors before
>> decrementing triggered_count because we cannot roll back in case an
>> error occurs while decrementing one of the rstc.
>> * Reworded the new call's description.
>
> Thank you, applied to reset/next.

Hi Philipp,

Would it be possible to get an immutable branch/tag with this ?
It would allow to move forward on the USB side, without waiting for the
next rc1.

Thx
Jerome

>
> regards
> Philipp