On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <b...@bgdev.pl> wrote: > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszew...@baylibre.com> > > The reset framework only supports device-tree. There are some platforms > however, which need to use it even in legacy, board-file based mode. > > An example of such architecture is the DaVinci family of SoCs which > supports both device tree and legacy boot modes and we don't want to > introduce any regressions. > > We're currently working on converting the platform from its hand-crafted > clock API to using the common clock framework. Part of the overhaul will > be representing the chip's power sleep controller's reset lines using > the reset framework. > > This changeset extends the core reset code with a new field in the > reset controller struct which contains an array of lookup entries. Each > entry contains the device name and an additional, optional identifier > string. > > Drivers can register a set of reset lines using this lookup table and > concerned devices can access them using the regular reset_control API. > > This new function is only called as a fallback in case the of_node > field is NULL and doesn't change anything for current users. > > Tested with a dummy reset driver with several lookup entries. > > An example lookup table can look like this: > > static const struct reset_lookup foobar_reset_lookup[] = { > [FOO_RESET] = { .dev = "foo", .id = "foo_id" }, > [BAR_RESET] = { .dev = "bar", .id = NULL }, > { } > }; > > where FOO_RESET and BAR_RESET will correspond with the id parameters > of reset callbacks.
> +static struct reset_control * > +__reset_control_get_from_lookup(struct device *dev, const char *id, > + bool shared, bool optional) > +{ > + struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev; > + const char *dev_id = dev_name(dev); > + struct reset_control *rstc = NULL; > + const struct reset_lookup *lookup; > + int index; > + > + mutex_lock(&reset_list_mutex); > + > + list_for_each_entry(rcdev, &reset_controller_list, list) { > + if (!rcdev->lookup) > + continue; > + > + lookup = rcdev->lookup; > + for (index = 0; lookup->dev; index++, lookup++) { > + if (strcmp(dev_id, lookup->dev)) > + continue; > + > + if ((!id && !lookup->id) || > + (id && lookup->id && !strcmp(id, lookup->id))) { > + rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, > + index, > shared); > + break; > + } Wouldn't be slightly more readable if (id && lookup->id) { if (strcmp(id, lookup->id)) continue; } else if (id || lookup->id) { continue; } rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, index, shared); break; > + } > + } > + > + mutex_unlock(&reset_list_mutex); > + > + if (!rstc) > + return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); Isn't simpler if (!optional && !rstc) // or other way around, depending which might be more offten return ERR_PTR(...); > + return rstc; > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko