Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] reset: replace boolean parameters with flags parameter

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Philipp,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:17:11PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Sa, 2024-06-22 at 09:47 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > @@ -999,8 +1001,9 @@ static struct reset_controller_dev *__reset_find_rcdev(const struct of_phandle_a
> > >  
> > >  struct reset_control *
> > >  __of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, const char *id, int index,
> > > -		       bool shared, bool optional, bool acquired)
> > > +		       enum reset_control_flags flags)
> > >  {
> > > +	bool optional = flags & RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL;
> > >  	bool gpio_fallback = false;
> > >  	struct reset_control *rstc;
> > >  	struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev;
> > > @@ -1065,7 +1068,7 @@ __of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, const char *id, int index,
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	/* reset_list_mutex also protects the rcdev's reset_control list */
> > > -	rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, shared, acquired);
> > > +	rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, flags);
> > 
> > If RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL was passed to
> > __of_reset_control_get(), you're forwarding it to
> > __reset_control_get_internal(). But the latter doesn't do anything with
> > that flag. I wonder if the API would be still less prone to error if
> > you'd filter out RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL before passing to
> > __reset_control_get_internal() and in __reset_control_get_internal() add
> > a check for unsupported flags.
> 
> Yes, I'll do that. For every enum value with the optional bit set,
> there is a corresponding value without it.

Do you have this still on your todo list? I just review a pwm driver
that would benefit from devm_reset_control_get_exclusive_deasserted().

Best regards
Uwe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature