On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:25:04PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:

The reset control API has two modes: exclusive access, where the driver
expects to have full and immediate control over the state of the reset
line, and shared (clock-like) access, where drivers only request reset
deassertion while active, but don't care about the state of the reset line
while inactive.

Commit a53e35db70d1 ("reset: Ensure drivers are explicit when requesting
reset lines") started to transition the reset control request API calls
to explicitly state whether the driver needs exclusive or shared reset
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:

Hey, I'm all for large api changes, but this really seems ackward, isn't
there a "better" way to do this?

Why not, as you say the "implicit" request is exclusive, just leave
everything alone and state that the "reset_control_get()" call is
exclusive and make the shared one the "odd" usage as that seems to not
be the normal case.

That should be a much smaller patch right?

That way you don't break everything here, and require 100+ patches to
just change the name of a function from one to another and do nothing
else.

thanks,

greg k-h