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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reset: make shared pulsed reset controls
 re-triggerable
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>
References: <20201112230043.28987-1-aouledameur@baylibre.com>
 <0f679c62aa48603ea43a8fa4819d688baa802d73.camel@pengutronix.de>
From:   Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com>
Message-ID: <95a40dd0-8762-5f80-f692-a2c1f22cad52@baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:28:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0f679c62aa48603ea43a8fa4819d688baa802d73.camel@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 13/11/2020 16:04, Philipp Zabel 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.
>
> regards
> Philipp

Thank you for reviewing and approving my patch !

Furthermore, I think your idea of open coding reset_control_array_rearm
was accurate, and should be also applied to reset_control_array_reset()
and reset_control_array_(de)assert()

What do you think ?

In case you agree it is necessary to do so, I can work out an upcoming
patchset to fix this matter.

Best,
Amjad