Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] reset: brcmstb rescal: implement {de}assert() instead of reset() | From | Amjad Ouled-Ameur <> | Date | Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:28:34 +0100 |
| |
Hi everyone,
On 09/11/2020 18:25, Philipp Zabel wrote: > On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 11:21 -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:05 AM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote: >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 14:17 -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote: >>>> Before, only control_reset() was implemented. However, the reset core only >>>> invokes control_reset() once in its lifetime. Because we need it to invoke >>>> control_reset() again after resume out of S2 or S3, we have switched to >>>> putting the reset functionality into the control_deassert() method and >>>> having an empty control_assert() method. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com> >>> You are switching to the wrong abstraction to work around a deficiency >>> of the reset controller framework. Instead, it would be better to allow >>> to "reactivate" shared pulsed resets so they can be triggered again. >> True. >>> Could you please have a look at [1], which tries to implement this with >>> a new API call, and check if this can fix your problem? If so, it would >>> be great if you could coordinate with Amjad to see this fixed in the >>> core. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201001132758.12280-1-aouledameur@baylibre.com/ >> Yes, this would work for our usage. Amjad please let me know if I can >> help here. The only "nit" I have is that I favor the name 'unreset' >> over 'resettable' but truly I don't care one way or the other.
My pleasure, I will send a V2 soon of the patch, when it is done, please let me know if I can add anything that would suit best your use case as well.
> Both unreset and resettable are adjectives, maybe it would be better to > have an imperative verb like the other API functions. I would have liked > reset_control_trigger/rearm as a pair, but I can't find anything I like > that fits with the somewhat unfortunate reset_control_reset name in my > mind. > In that sense, I don't have a preference one way or the other either.
I think reset_control_rearm would be a very good candidate, resettable is quite representative but I think it is best to keep using verbs for the sake of homogeneity
> > regards > Philipp
Sincerely,
Amjad
| |