Hi All,
On 03/21/2017 03:10 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 20 March 2017 at 12:00, Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 11:49 +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>> On 20.03.2017 11:27, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/reset.h b/include/linux/reset.h
>>>> index 86b4ed75359e8..c905ff1c21ec6 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/reset.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/reset.h
>>>> @@ -74,14 +74,14 @@ static inline struct reset_control
>>>> *__of_reset_control_get(
>>>> const char *id, int index, bool shared,
>>>> bool optional)
>>>> {
>>>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
>>>> + return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static inline struct reset_control *__devm_reset_control_get(
>>>> struct device *dev, const char *id,
>>>> int index, bool shared, bool optional)
>>>> {
>>>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
>>>> + return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER */
>>>> ---------->8----------
>>>
>>> In dw_mmc.c file there are also unconditional calls to
>>> reset_control_assert, with disabled RESET_CONTROLLER it will cause
>>> unexpected WARNs.
>>> Anyway if you change reset API as above I think you should remove all
>>> warns from reset stubs, because NULL reset is valid, but these warns are
>>> there for reason - contradiction.
>>
>> You are right, I have to let go of those, too.
>
>
> Until fixed, I have dropped the three changes from my next branch
> related to this. Please re-post when fixed.
I missed this patch. If resend the patch, i will check.
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
>>
>> regards
>> Philipp
>>
>
>
>
