From: Philipp Zabel Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:33:41 +0200 Message-ID: <1500885221.2391.50.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <20170719152646.25903-1-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20170719211515.46a1196c@windsurf> <1500543415.2354.37.camel@pengutronix.de> <20170720123640.43c2ce01@windsurf> <1500555312.2354.75.camel@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Thomas Petazzoni , lkml , Andrew Lunn , Prashant Gaikwad , Heiko Stuebner , Peter Chen , DRI , Marc Dietrich , Rakesh Iyer , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , linux-clk , Wim Van Sebroeck , Wolfram Sang , Xinliang Liu , Chanwoo Choi , Alan Stern , Jiri Slaby , Michael Turquette , Guenter Roeck
  • Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 20:41 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > >>> What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags) > >>> to replace all those variants ? > >> > >> While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get > >> already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a > >> gentle transition. > > > > This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying > > #define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users. > > For your reference: > > commit bae48da237fcedd7ad09569025483b988635efb7 > "gpiolib: add gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() functions" > > commit 39b2bbe3d715cf5013b5c48695ccdd25bd3bf120 > "gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions" > > commit 0dbc8b7afef6e4fddcfebcbacbeb269a0a3b06d5 > "gpio: move varargs hack outside #ifdef GPIOLIB" > > commit b17d1bf16cc72a374a48d748940f700009d40ff4 > "gpio: make flags mandatory for gpiod_get functions" > > Retrospectively ... was that really a good idea... it was a LOT > of trouble to add a flag, maybe it had been better to try and > just slam all users in a single go. > > But it worked. Thanks for the hint and the references. It seems this turned out okay, but I wouldn't dare to introduce such macro horror^Wmagic. I'd rather have all users converted to the _exclusive/_shared function calls and maybe then replace the internal __reset_control_get with Thomas' suggestion. regards Philipp