From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-07-19 15:52:27
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. Convert all drivers requesting exclusive resets to the
explicit API call so the temporary transition helpers can be removed.
No functional changes.
Cc: Rakesh Iyer <redacted>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <redacted>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <redacted>
Cc: Thierry Reding <redacted>
Cc: Jonathan Hunter <redacted>
Cc: linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <redacted>
---
drivers/input/keyboard/tegra-kbc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ static int tegra_kbc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)returnPTR_ERR(kbc->clk);}-kbc->rst=devm_reset_control_get(&pdev->dev,"kbc");+kbc->rst=devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(&pdev->dev,"kbc");if(IS_ERR(kbc->rst)){dev_err(&pdev->dev,"failed to get keyboard reset\n");returnPTR_ERR(kbc->rst);
From: Thomas Petazzoni <hidden> Date: 2017-07-19 19:15:15
Hello,
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:25:04 +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:
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id);
+rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id);
I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
separate exclusive variants ?
Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more
variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of
functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for
example.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
From: Maxime Ripard <hidden> Date: 2017-07-20 06:56:42
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:
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id);
+rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id);
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = reset_control_get_optional(dev, id);
+rstc = reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, id);
@@
expression rstc, node, id;
@@
-rstc = of_reset_control_get(node, id);
+rstc = of_reset_control_get_exclusive(node, id);
@@
expression rstc, node, index;
@@
-rstc = of_reset_control_get_by_index(node, index);
+rstc = of_reset_control_get_exclusive_by_index(node, index);
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = devm_reset_control_get(dev, id);
+rstc = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id);
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = devm_reset_control_get_optional(dev, id);
+rstc = devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive(dev, id);
@@
expression rstc, dev, index;
@@
-rstc = devm_reset_control_get_by_index(dev, index);
+rstc = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive_by_index(dev, index);
After all driver patches are applied, the temporary transition helpers
can be removed.
regards
Philipp
Philipp Zabel (102):
ARM: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ARM: socfpga: explicitly request exclusive reset control
MIPS: pci-mt7620: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ahci: st: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ata: sata_gemini: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ata: ahci_tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
bus: sunxi-rsb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
bus: tegra-gmi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
clk: sunxi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
clk: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
clocksource/drivers/timer-stm32: explicitly request exclusive reset
control
clocksource/drivers/sun5i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
crypto: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
crypto: sun4i-ss - request exclusive reset control
PM / devfreq: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
dmaengine: stm32-dma: explicitly request exclusive reset control
dmaengine: sun6i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
dmaengine: tegra-apb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm: kirin: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/nouveau/tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/sti: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/stm: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/sun4i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
drm/tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
gpu: host1x: explicitly request exclusive reset control
i2c: mv64xxx: explicitly request exclusive reset control
i2c: stm32f4: explicitly request exclusive reset control
i2c: sun6i-pw2i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
i2c: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
iio: adc: rockchip_saradc: explicitly request exclusive reset control
iio: dac: stm32-dac-core: explicitly request exclusive reset control
Input: tegra-kbc - request exclusive reset control
coda: explicitly request exclusive reset control
st-rc: explicitly request exclusive reset control
stm32-dcmi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
rc: sunxi-cir: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mmc: dw_mmc: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mmc: sdhci-st: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mmc: sunxi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mmc: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mtd: nand: sunxi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
mtd: spi-nor: stm32-quadspi: explicitly request exclusive reset
control
net: dsa: mt7530: explicitly request exclusive reset control
net: ethernet: hisi_femac: explicitly request exclusive reset control
net: ethernet: hix5hd2_gmac: explicitly request exclusive reset
control
net: stmmac: explicitly request exclusive reset control
net: stmmac: dwc-qos: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ath10k: explicitly request exclusive reset control
nvmem: lpc18xx-eeprom: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: dwc: pcie-qcom: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: imx6: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: berlin-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: mediatek: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: qcom-usb-hs: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-pcie: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-typec: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: sun4i-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: sun9i-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: qcom-qmp: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: qcom-qusb2: explicitly request exclusive reset control
pinctrl: stm32: explicitly request exclusive reset control
pinctrl: sunxi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
pinctrl: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
pwm: hibvt: explicitly request exclusive reset control
pwm: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
remoteproc/keystone: explicitly request exclusive reset control
remoteproc: qcom: explicitly request exclusive reset control
remoteproc: st: explicitly request exclusive reset control
soc: mediatek: PMIC wrap: explicitly request exclusive reset control
soc/tegra: pmc: explicitly request exclusive reset control
spi: stm32: explicitly request exclusive reset control
spi: sun6i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
spi: tegra20-slink: explicitly request exclusive reset control
spi: tegra114: explicitly request exclusive reset control
spi: tegra20-sflash: explicitly request exclusive reset control
staging: nvec: explicitly request exclusive reset control
thermal: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
thermal: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
serial: 8250_dw: explicitly request exclusive reset control
serial: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: chipidea: msm: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: dwc2: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: host: ehci-tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: host: xhci-tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: musb: sunxi: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: phy: msm: explicitly request exclusive reset control
usb: phy: qcom-8x16-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
watchdog: asm9260: explicitly request exclusive reset control
watchdog: mt7621: explicitly request exclusive reset control
watchdog: rt2880: explicitly request exclusive reset control
watchdog: zx2967: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ASoC: img: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ASoC: stm32: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ASoC: sun4i: explicitly request exclusive reset control
ASoC: tegra: explicitly request exclusive reset control
Documentation: devres: add explicit exclusive/shared reset control
request calls
reset: finish transition to explicit exclusive reset control requests
For all sunxi patches:
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
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
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-07-20 09:24:24
Hi Greg,
The patches in this series are completely independent of each other, and
I would like the subsystem maintainers to apply them at their own
leisure.
Well, except for the last one, which I will apply only after there are
no more users of the transition helpers.
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 10:11 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:25:04PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
quoted
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?
It is a bit awkward. I am sorry I haven't done this earlier. Quite a few
new drivers started using the old API after the explicit requests were
introduced last year.
Why not, as you say the "implicit" request is exclusive, just leave
everything alone and state that the "reset_control_get()" call is
exclusive
I think it is better to let the drivers explicitly state what they
expect from the API, and using reset_control_get_exclusive vs _shared
helps driver developers to make a conscious decision.
Further, the implicit API call predates shared reset support, so it is
not clear that all of the old users really need exclusive control.
A few drivers have been switched to the shared API already.
and make the shared one the "odd" usage as that seems to not
be the normal case.
I am not sure, there have been people arguing that the "clock-like" case
really is the common one. I suppose some of those drivers touched by the
100 patches in this series could also be changed to shared. But I don't
dare to make this decision for each of them.
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.
I don't break anything here, and I'm absolutely fine with squashing
patches together per subsystem where that is preferable.
regards
Philipp
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-07-20 09:36:55
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:15 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:25:04 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
quoted
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:
@@
expression rstc, dev, id;
@@
-rstc = reset_control_get(dev, id);
+rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, id);
I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
separate exclusive variants ?
Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more
variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of
functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for
example.
I can't find the discussion right now, but I remember we had talked
about this in the past.
Behind the scenes, all the inline API functions already call common
entry points with flags (well, currently separate bool parameters for
shared and optional).
One reason against exposing those as an int flags in the user facing API
is the possibility to accidentally provide a wrong value.
regards
Philipp
From: Thomas Petazzoni <hidden> Date: 2017-07-20 10:36:40
Hello,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
quoted
I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
separate exclusive variants ?
Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more
variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of
functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for
example.
I can't find the discussion right now, but I remember we had talked
about this in the past.
Behind the scenes, all the inline API functions already call common
entry points with flags (well, currently separate bool parameters for
shared and optional).
One reason against exposing those as an int flags in the user facing API
is the possibility to accidentally provide a wrong value.
This is a quite strange argument. You could also accidentally use the
wrong variant of the function, just like you could use the wrong flag.
Once again, the next time you have another parameter for those reset
functions, beyond the exclusive/shared variant, you will multiply again
by two the number of functions ? You already have the exclusive/shared
and optional/mandatory variants, so 4 variants. When you'll add a new
parameter, you'll have 8 variants. Doesn't seem really good.
What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
to replace all those variants ?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-07-20 12:55:12
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 12:36 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
quoted
quoted
I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
separate exclusive variants ?
Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more
variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of
functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for
example.
I can't find the discussion right now, but I remember we had talked
about this in the past.
Behind the scenes, all the inline API functions already call common
entry points with flags (well, currently separate bool parameters for
shared and optional).
One reason against exposing those as an int flags in the user facing API
is the possibility to accidentally provide a wrong value.
This is a quite strange argument. You could also accidentally use the
wrong variant of the function, just like you could use the wrong flag.
You can't accidentally use no flag at all or a completely bogus value
with the "plethora of inline functions" variant.
Once again, the next time you have another parameter for those reset
functions, beyond the exclusive/shared variant, you will multiply again
by two the number of functions ? You already have the exclusive/shared
and optional/mandatory variants, so 4 variants. When you'll add a new
parameter, you'll have 8 variants. Doesn't seem really good.
I'd rather avoid adding more variants, if possible. The complexity
increases regardless of whether the API is expressed as a bunch of
functions or as a single function with a bunch of flags.
What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
to replace all those variants ?
While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
gentle transition.
regards
Philipp
crypto: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
iio: adc: rockchip_saradc: explicitly request exclusive reset control
PCI: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-pcie: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-typec: explicitly request exclusive reset control
phy: rockchip-usb: explicitly request exclusive reset control
thermal: rockchip: explicitly request exclusive reset control
for the driver-related Rockchip changes
Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 12:36 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
quoted
Hello,
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
quoted
quoted
I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it
has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the
existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing
separate exclusive variants ?
Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more
variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of
functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for
example.
I can't find the discussion right now, but I remember we had talked
about this in the past.
Behind the scenes, all the inline API functions already call common
entry points with flags (well, currently separate bool parameters for
shared and optional).
One reason against exposing those as an int flags in the user facing API
is the possibility to accidentally provide a wrong value.
This is a quite strange argument. You could also accidentally use the
wrong variant of the function, just like you could use the wrong flag.
You can't accidentally use no flag at all or a completely bogus value
with the "plethora of inline functions" variant.
quoted
Once again, the next time you have another parameter for those reset
functions, beyond the exclusive/shared variant, you will multiply again
by two the number of functions ? You already have the exclusive/shared
and optional/mandatory variants, so 4 variants. When you'll add a new
parameter, you'll have 8 variants. Doesn't seem really good.
I'd rather avoid adding more variants, if possible. The complexity
increases regardless of whether the API is expressed as a bunch of
functions or as a single function with a bunch of flags.
quoted
What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
to replace all those variants ?
While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
gentle transition.
This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
#define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
--
Dmitry
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
to replace all those variants ?
While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
gentle transition.
This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
#define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
For your reference:
commit bae48da237fcedd7ad09569025483b988635efb7
"gpiolib: add gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() functions"
commit 39b2bbe3d715cf5013b5c48695ccdd25bd3bf120
"gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions"
commit 0dbc8b7afef6e4fddcfebcbacbeb269a0a3b06d5
"gpio: move varargs hack outside #ifdef GPIOLIB"
commit b17d1bf16cc72a374a48d748940f700009d40ff4
"gpio: make flags mandatory for gpiod_get functions"
Retrospectively ... was that really a good idea... it was a LOT
of trouble to add a flag, maybe it had been better to try and
just slam all users in a single go.
But it worked.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-07-24 08:33:41
On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 20:41 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
What about reset_control_get(struct device *, const char *, int flags)
to replace all those variants ?
While I like how this looks, unfortunately (devm_)reset_control_get
already exists without the flags, so we can't change to that with a
gentle transition.
This was done for gpiod_get() and its flags argument with horrifying
#define-ry, which thankfully was completely hidden from users.
For your reference:
commit bae48da237fcedd7ad09569025483b988635efb7
"gpiolib: add gpiod_get() and gpiod_put() functions"
commit 39b2bbe3d715cf5013b5c48695ccdd25bd3bf120
"gpio: add flags argument to gpiod_get*() functions"
commit 0dbc8b7afef6e4fddcfebcbacbeb269a0a3b06d5
"gpio: move varargs hack outside #ifdef GPIOLIB"
commit b17d1bf16cc72a374a48d748940f700009d40ff4
"gpio: make flags mandatory for gpiod_get functions"
Retrospectively ... was that really a good idea... it was a LOT
of trouble to add a flag, maybe it had been better to try and
just slam all users in a single go.
But it worked.
Thanks for the hint and the references. It seems this turned out okay,
but I wouldn't dare to introduce such macro horror^Wmagic.
I'd rather have all users converted to the _exclusive/_shared function
calls and maybe then replace the internal __reset_control_get with
Thomas' suggestion.
regards
Philipp
From: Wolfram Sang <hidden> Date: 2017-08-12 11:43:57
Thanks for the hint and the references. It seems this turned out okay,
but I wouldn't dare to introduce such macro horror^Wmagic.
I'd rather have all users converted to the _exclusive/_shared function
calls and maybe then replace the internal __reset_control_get with
Thomas' suggestion.
I didn't follow the discussion closely. Shall I still apply the i2c
patches?
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> Date: 2017-08-14 07:36:38
On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 13:43 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
quoted
Thanks for the hint and the references. It seems this turned out
okay,
but I wouldn't dare to introduce such macro horror^Wmagic.
I'd rather have all users converted to the _exclusive/_shared
function
calls and maybe then replace the internal __reset_control_get with
Thomas' suggestion.
I didn't follow the discussion closely. Shall I still apply the i2c
patches?