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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jim,True.
On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 14:17 -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote:
Before, only control_reset() was implemented. However, the reset core onlyYou are switching to the wrong abstraction to work around a deficiency
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
of the reset controller framework. Instead, it would be better to allow
to "reactivate" shared pulsed resets so they can be triggered again.
Could you please have a look at [1], which tries to implement this withYes, this would work for our usage. Amjad please let me know if I can
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
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.
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.
regards
Philipp