On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@kernel.org> wrote:
> @@ -401,6 +402,26 @@ static int amba_device_try_add(struct amba_device *dev,
> struct resource *parent)
> ret = amba_get_enable_pclk(dev);
> if (ret == 0) {
> u32 pid, cid;
> + int count;
> + struct reset_control *rstc;
> +
> + /*
> + * Find reset control(s) of the amba bus and de-assert them.
> + */
> + count = reset_control_get_count(&dev->dev);
> + while (count > 0) {
> + rstc =
> of_reset_control_get_shared_by_index(dev->dev.of_node, count - 1);
> + if (IS_ERR(rstc)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(rstc) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + else
> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Can't get amba
> reset!\n");
> + break;
> + }
> + reset_control_deassert(rstc);
> + reset_control_put(rstc);
> + count--;
> + }
I'm not normally a footprint person, but the looks of the stubs in
<linux/reset.h> makes me suspicious whether this will have zero impact
in size on platforms without reset controllers.
Can you just ls -al on the kernel without CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER
before and after this patch and ascertain that it has zero footprint effect?
If it doesn't I'd sure like to break this into its own function and
stick a if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER)) return 0;
in there to make sure the compiler drops it.
Also it'd be nice to get Philipp's ACK on the semantics, though they
look correct to me.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
