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