From: Philipp Zabel Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:24:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1500542664.2354.27.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <20170719152646.25903-1-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20170720081157.GA11630@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Lunn , Prashant Gaikwad , Heiko Stuebner , Peter Chen , Linus Walleij , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Marc Dietrich , Rakesh Iyer , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Wolfram Sang , Xinliang Liu , Chanwoo Choi , Alan Stern , Jiri Slaby , Michael Turquette , Guenter Roeck , Ohad Ben-Cohen , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Vincent Abriou , Bin Liu , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@ To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170720081157.GA11630@kroah.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+gldad-ath10k=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Hi Greg, The patches in this series are completely independent of each other, and I would like the subsystem maintainers to apply them at their own leisure. Well, except for the last one, which I will apply only after there are no more users of the transition helpers. On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 10:11 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:25:04PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > The reset control API has two modes: exclusive access, where the driver > > expects to have full and immediate control over the state of the reset > > line, and shared (clock-like) access, where drivers only request reset > > deassertion while active, but don't care about the state of the reset line > > while inactive. > > > > Commit a53e35db70d1 ("reset: Ensure drivers are explicit when requesting > > reset lines") started to transition the reset control request API calls > > to explicitly state whether the driver needs exclusive or shared reset > > control behavior. > > > > This series converts all drivers that currently implicitly request > > exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is, > > for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch: > > Hey, I'm all for large api changes, but this really seems ackward, isn't > there a "better" way to do this? It is a bit awkward. I am sorry I haven't done this earlier. Quite a few new drivers started using the old API after the explicit requests were introduced last year. > Why not, as you say the "implicit" request is exclusive, just leave > everything alone and state that the "reset_control_get()" call is > exclusive I think it is better to let the drivers explicitly state what they expect from the API, and using reset_control_get_exclusive vs _shared helps driver developers to make a conscious decision. Further, the implicit API call predates shared reset support, so it is not clear that all of the old users really need exclusive control. A few drivers have been switched to the shared API already. > and make the shared one the "odd" usage as that seems to not > be the normal case. I am not sure, there have been people arguing that the "clock-like" case really is the common one. I suppose some of those drivers touched by the 100 patches in this series could also be changed to shared. But I don't dare to make this decision for each of them. > That should be a much smaller patch right? > > That way you don't break everything here, and require 100+ patches to > just change the name of a function from one to another and do nothing > else. I don't break anything here, and I'm absolutely fine with squashing patches together per subsystem where that is preferable. regards Philipp