Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] clk: en7523: add support for dedicated PCIe PERSTOUT reset

[Christian Marangi]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:07:22AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Sa, 2026-06-27 at 14:14 +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Add support for resetting the PCIe lines with the PERSTOUT reset. These
> > special reset are controlled by the PCIC register and are specific to each
> > of the 3 PCIe lines.
> > 
> > Notice that reset logic is inverted for these bit where 0 is assert and 1
> > deassert. This is intenrally handled in the reset function.
>                         ^^
> typo: internally
>

Thanks!
 
> > PCI enable/disable are updated to drop PERSTOUT bits in favor dedicated
> > reset handling.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c b/drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c
> > index 1ab0e2eca5d3..c9b21d9bf2f3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c
> [...]
> > @@ -754,14 +756,21 @@ static int en7523_reset_update(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> >  			       unsigned long id, bool assert)
> >  {
> >  	struct en_rst_data *rst_data = container_of(rcdev, struct en_rst_data, rcdev);
> > -	void __iomem *addr = rst_data->base + rst_data->bank_ofs[id / RST_NR_PER_BANK];
> > +	u32 offset = rst_data->bank_ofs[id / RST_NR_PER_BANK];
> > +	void __iomem *addr = rst_data->base + offset;
> > +	bool inverted = false;
> >  	u32 val;
> >  
> > +	/* For PCIC reset logic is inverted, 0:assert 1:deassert*/
> > +	if (offset == REG_NP_SCU_PCIC)
> > +		inverted = true;
> > +
> >  	val = readl(addr);
> > +	val &= ~BIT(id % RST_NR_PER_BANK);
> >  	if (assert)
> > -		val |= BIT(id % RST_NR_PER_BANK);
> > +		val |= inverted ? 0 : BIT(id % RST_NR_PER_BANK);
> >  	else
> > -		val &= ~BIT(id % RST_NR_PER_BANK);
> > +		val |= inverted ? BIT(id % RST_NR_PER_BANK) : 0;
> 
> You can simplify this into a single (assert ^ inverted) condition.
> 

Yep I know but I feel this would decrease readability of the logic. Do you
think it's worth it?

> regards
> Philipp

-- 
	Ansuel