Re: [PATCH master] mci: dw_mmc: make reset control optional again

[Sascha Hauer <sha@pengutronix.de>]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 06:52:07PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> As documented in 90bdf1e5d1e4 ("mci: dw_mmc: match against StarFive MMC
> compatibles"), it was intended for the reset to remain optional as to
> not break existing users. Unfortunately, my later a3cf324593ea
> ("mci: dw_mmc: add optional reset line") didn't heed that and made it
> required, breaking SoCFPGA DW-MMC use as a result.
> 
> Revert that line to fix the regression.
> 
> Fixes: a3cf324593ea ("mci: dw_mmc: add optional reset line")
> Reported-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
> ---
>  drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
> index b402090ab3cb..86c4f43e88f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mci/dw_mmc.c
> @@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ static int dw_mmc_probe(struct device_d *dev)
>  
>  	rst = reset_control_get(dev, "reset");

Philipp, the reset binding lists the reset-names property as optional.
What's the expected behaviour of the reset_control_get() above when the
reset-names property is not present in the device tree? Should it return
an error or should it return the unnamed reset control?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox