Messages in this thread | | | From | Laurent Pinchart <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] reset: Make optional functions really optional. | Date | Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:57:20 +0200 |
| |
Hi Ramiro,
On Friday 23 Dec 2016 17:19:43 Ramiro Oliveira wrote: > On 12/23/2016 12:08 PM, 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_201 > >>>> 6_12_14_502&d=DgICaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=BHEb-RADEOm-lgrwdN4zqtr > >>>> 2BWZMjeocyTkjphE6PrA&m=_0T0di-X6zgDw8ZRLDNk2ExL2EieBiCmAmuxc8OGAg4&s=H5 > >>>> BfD4P5MB85jtyUjDrn6yKu-6ws5srNWNNiFpPL0pQ&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
[snip]
> >>>> static inline struct reset_control *reset_control_get_optional_shared( > >>>> struct device *dev, const char > >>>> *id) > >>>> { > >>>> - return __of_reset_control_get(dev ? dev->of_node : NULL, id, > >>>> 0, 1); > >>>> + > >>>> + struct reset_control *desc; > >>>> + > >>>> + desc = __of_reset_control_get(dev ? dev->of_node : NULL, id, > >>>> 0, 1); > >>>> + > >>>> + if (IS_ERR(desc)) { > >>>> + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -ENOENT) > >>>> + return NULL; > >>>> + } > >>> > >>> With this duplication, I think it might be better to add an int optional > >>> parameter > >> > >> What's wrong with bool by the way ? :-) > > > > Nothing wrong, it's just that the "exclusive" parameter is already int. > > I'd be perfectly fine with using bool for both. > > Do you prefer me to keep them both int, or change them to bool?
I'd prefer bool myself, it's slightly more explicit.
-- Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
| |