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