On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:29:49PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > Another question is... why do we need to check pd->dev.of_node here?
> > > If CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is set, we always try to get the reset
> > > controller node, so drv_data->rstc is either going to be a valid
> > > pointer, or it's going to be an error pointer - neither
> > > reset_control_get() nor devm_reset_control_get return NULL.
> > 
> > Hmmm, right. I'll fix this in a later version.
> > 
> > Wolfram, do you want me to respin the patch making use of
> > reset_get_optional introduced by Philip in its other mail?
> 
> I think I'd prefer both issues fixed with one patch like in "fixing up
> reset controller handling".

You mean the of_node check and the use of reset_control_get_optional, right?

> And you might want to give a Tested- or Reviewed-by tag to Philipp's
> patch if you are going to use it.

Yes, I will. I'll only have access to the hardware on monday though,
so I won't be able to actually test it before then.

Thanks,
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com