Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable | From | Amjad Ouled-Ameur <> | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:28:05 +0100 |
| |
On 13/11/2020 16:04, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 00:00 +0100, Amjad Ouled-Ameur wrote: >> The current reset framework API does not allow to release what is done by >> reset_control_reset(), IOW decrement triggered_count. Add the new >> reset_control_rearm() call to do so. >> >> When reset_control_reset() has been called once, the counter >> triggered_count, in the reset framework, is incremented i.e the resource >> under the reset is in-use and the reset should not be done again. >> reset_control_rearm() would be the way to state that the resource is >> no longer used and, that from the caller's perspective, the reset can be >> fired again if necessary. >> >> Signed-off-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com> >> Reported-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> >> --- >> Change since v1: [0] >> * Renamed the new call from reset_control_(array_)resettable to >> reset_control_(array_)rearm >> * Open-coded reset_control_array_rearm to check for errors before >> decrementing triggered_count because we cannot roll back in case an >> error occurs while decrementing one of the rstc. >> * Reworded the new call's description. > Thank you, applied to reset/next. > > regards > Philipp
Thank you for reviewing and approving my patch !
Furthermore, I think your idea of open coding reset_control_array_rearm was accurate, and should be also applied to reset_control_array_reset() and reset_control_array_(de)assert()
What do you think ?
In case you agree it is necessary to do so, I can work out an upcoming patchset to fix this matter.
Best, Amjad
| |