Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1463622 > unrolled thread

Re: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ?

Started byMasahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
First post2016-08-16 11:50 +0200
Last post2016-08-24 16:00 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ? Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2016-08-16 11:50 +0200
    Re: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ? Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> - 2016-08-24 16:00 +0200

#1463622 — Re: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ?

FromMasahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date2016-08-16 11:50 +0200
SubjectRe: Why do we need reset_control_get_optional() ?
Message-ID<s6Jap-1oP-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi Arnd,



2016-08-06 0:35 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:

>
> config RESET_FOO
>         bool "FOO reset controller" if COMPILE_TEST && !ARCH_FOO
>         default ARCH_FOO
>
> then I think we get both: you won't be able to turn it off
> but also get the build testing.


This looks good to me, too.
I do not know if we need "&& !ARCH_FOO", though.

When we are compile-testing, we do not care if it works on run-time,
so perhaps it makes sense to allow to enable/disable RESET_FOO
regardless ARCH_FOO.


Philipp also agreed, so I guess the permission for this rework
is granted.
Would you do it?



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1469470

FromPhilipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Date2016-08-24 16:00 +0200
Message-ID<s9GSJ-33R-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1463622
Am Dienstag, den 16.08.2016, 18:41 +0900 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> 2016-08-06 0:35 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> 
> >
> > config RESET_FOO
> >         bool "FOO reset controller" if COMPILE_TEST && !ARCH_FOO
> >         default ARCH_FOO
> >
> > then I think we get both: you won't be able to turn it off
> > but also get the build testing.
>
> This looks good to me, too.
> I do not know if we need "&& !ARCH_FOO", though.
> 
> When we are compile-testing, we do not care if it works on run-time,
> so perhaps it makes sense to allow to enable/disable RESET_FOO
> regardless ARCH_FOO.

I'll send a few patches to add the Kconfig symbols. Turning around the
RESET_CONTROLLER selection can be done in a second step.

regards
Philipp

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web