search for: reset_control_get_

Hello, On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it > > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the > > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing > > separate exclusive variants ? > > > > Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more > > variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of > > functions. Something like the "fla...

...all drivers that currently implicitly request > exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is, > for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch: > > @@ > expression rstc, dev, id; > @@ > -rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id); > +rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id); I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing separate exclusive variants ? Indeed, with a "int flags...

...equest > > exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is, > > for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch: > > > > @@ > > expression rstc, dev, id; > > @@ > > -rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id); > > +rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id); > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing > separate exclusive variants ? >...

...wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it > > > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the > > > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing > > > separate exclusive variants ? > > > > > > Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more > > > variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of > > > functions. Som...

...t;> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >> > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it >> > > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the >> > > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing >> > > separate exclusive variants ? >> > > >> > > Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more >> > > variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of >> >...

...control behavior. This series converts all drivers that currently implicitly request exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is, for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch: @@ expression rstc, dev, id; @@ -rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id); +rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id); @@ expression rstc, dev, id; @@ -rstc = reset_control_get_optional(dev, id); +rstc = reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, id); @@ expression rstc, node, id; @@ -rstc = of_reset_control_get(node, id); +rstc = of_reset_control_get_exclusive(node, id); @@ expression rstc, node,...