Messages in this thread | | | From | Ramiro Oliveira <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] reset: Make optional functions really optional. | Date | Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:53:51 +0000 |
| |
Hi Laurent and Philipp
On 12/23/2016 4:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > On Friday 23 Dec 2016 13:08:54 Philipp Zabel wrote: >> Am Freitag, den 23.12.2016, 13:23 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: >>> On Friday 23 Dec 2016 11:58:57 Philipp Zabel wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2016, 18:05 +0000 schrieb Ramiro Oliveira: >>>>> Up until now optional functions in the reset API were similar to the >>>>> non optional. >>>>> >>>>> This patch corrects that, while maintaining compatibility with >>>>> existing drivers. >>>>> >>>>> As suggested here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.org_lkml_2016_12_14_502&d=DgICAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=BHEb-RADEOm-lgrwdN4zqtr2BWZMjeocyTkjphE6PrA&m=8s4unvlk7rXGYKdQcMBxpYLmdnROh5aQ_iHU03InFoM&s=oNBgTOo47LBs0JvtJ5Qd_6uVqrcMkWAq1PmNN4qt16g&e= >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ramiro Oliveira <Ramiro.Oliveira@synopsys.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> drivers/reset/core.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>> include/linux/reset.h | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c >>>>> index 395dc9c..6150e7c 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/reset/core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c >>>>> @@ -135,9 +135,14 @@ >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_reset_controller_register); >>>>> * @rstc: reset controller >>>>> * >>>>> * Calling this on a shared reset controller is an error. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * If it's an optional reset it will return 0. >>>> >>>> I'd prefer this to explicitly mention that rstc==NULL means this is an >>>> optional reset: >>>> >>>> "If rstc is NULL it is an optional reset and the function will just >>>> return 0." >>> >>> Maybe we should document in a single place that NULL is a valid value for >>> a reset_control pointer and will result in the API behaving as a no-op ? >>> If you want to duplicate the information I'd still prefer talking about >>> no-op than about "just returning 0". >> >> Does "no-op" implicate the return value 0? Maybe there is a better way >> to express "no action, returns 0". > > The important point in my opinion is that a NULL argument will result in the > function performing no operation and indicating success exactly like a call > with a non-NULL pointer would. The proposed text makes it sound like a 0 > return value is specific to the NULL argument case. This is a detail though. >
"If rstc is NULL it is an optional reset and the function will just return 0 like any other successful call."
Do you guys think the above message is more explicit?
>> Currently there is no central place for this information, and as long as >> the text not much longer than a reference to the central location would >> be, I'm fine with duplication. >> >>>>> */ >>>>> int reset_control_reset(struct reset_control *rstc) >>>>> { >>>>> + if (!rstc) >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> + >>>>> if (WARN_ON(rstc->shared)) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >
| |