Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <89b82aeeb613543642274623cedd71b682974a2d.camel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/19] hwmon: (mr75203) skip reset-control deassert
 for SOCs that don't support it
From:   Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
To:     Eliav Farber <farbere@amazon.com>, jdelvare@suse.com,
        linux@roeck-us.net, robh+dt@kernel.org, rtanwar@maxlinear.com,
        linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     talel@amazon.com, hhhawa@amazon.com, jonnyc@amazon.com,
        hanochu@amazon.com, ronenk@amazon.com, itamark@amazon.com,
        shellykz@amazon.com, shorer@amazon.com, amitlavi@amazon.com,
        almogbs@amazon.com, dkl@amazon.com, rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@intel.com
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:19:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220830192212.28570-6-farbere@amazon.com>
References: <20220830192212.28570-1-farbere@amazon.com>
         <20220830192212.28570-6-farbere@amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi Eliav,

On Di, 2022-08-30 at 19:21 +0000, Eliav Farber wrote:
> Don't fail the probe function and don't deassert the reset controller if
> a "reset" property doesn't exist in the device tree.
> 
> Change is done for SOCs that don't support a reset controller.

Not strictly related to this patch, but reading the context I wonder
whether it is required that clock/reset are running/deasserted all the
time. Would it make sense to implement some kind of runtime PM?

> Signed-off-by: Eliav Farber <farbere@amazon.com>

This change is

Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>

regards
Philipp