Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] reset: imx8mp-audiomix: Replace mask with bit index

On 11/25/2025 12:40 PM, Philipp Zabel wrote:

On Di, 2025-11-25 at 01:59 -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:

quoted

On 11/24/2025 7:41 AM, Frank Li wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 01:28:32AM -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:

quoted

On 11/21/2025 7:38 AM, Frank Li wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 05:37:34AM -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:

quoted

From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <redacted>

Replace the reset map mask with the bit index to make it clear that all
reset lines are managed by exactly 1 bit.

I don't think there are benefit because I met some periphal need a magic
number to reset.

Toggling multiple bits in unison is different from having to write a
magic number to a register field. The driver currently supports
neither. That is why I suggested to change from mask to bit.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Please provide more information. What SoC? Which peripherals? What block control?

I can't reminder exact one. I grep some code

[IMX8MP_MEDIABLK_PD_LCDIF_1] = {
                .name = "mediablk-lcdif-1",
                .clk_names = (const char *[]){ "disp1", "apb", "axi", },
                .num_clks = 3,
                .gpc_name = "lcdif1",
                .rst_mask = BIT(4) | BIT(5) | BIT(23),
                .clk_mask = BIT(4) | BIT(5) | BIT(23),

According to the reference manual, these are three separate software
resets for three separate clocks: lcdif_pixel_clk, lcdif_apb_clk, and
lcdif_axi_clk.

quoted

quoted

                .path_names = (const char *[]){"lcdif-rd", "lcdif-wr"},
                .num_paths = 2,
        },

mask is more extenable and easily support more hardware in future.

If such hardware appears in the future, it will be easy to adapt the
driver. Usually we don't prematurely add complexity for possible future
hardware.

quoted

quoted

Change to bit number have not big benefit.

It improves readability as it makes immediately clear from the code
that all resets correspond to a single bit.

quoted

sure, I'm fine with the mask-based approach. The big idea here is to make this driver
usable in as many scenarios as possible.

Philipp, please let me know if you're okay with the proposal. Will also have to tweak
one of the subsequent patches since, so far, we've been operating under the assumption
that reset lines are 1 bit.

Given that the current code is already using mask, and if you think it
is likely that there will be need for reset controls that require
toggling multiple bits with a single write, I'm fine with keeping the
mask.

ACK. Unfortunately, I don't have an use-case for this driver in which we'd want to

manage multiple underlying reset lines as a single one like in Frank's example. I'm

also assuming Frank doesn't have one either based on his previous comment.


Despite this, however, the previous version of the driver was already able to handle

this use-case. The single-bit reset restriction was introduced by this series. Therefore, I

suggest we reduce the number of changes and revert to the old behavior.


This way, we'll avoid reverting the patches if someone does ever come up with

such an use-case. I'd say the driver is simple enough that the code readability will

not be severely impacted.


Either way, I think we'd be fine with any of the two approaches in the end.

regards
Philipp