Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/102] Convert drivers to explicit reset API

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:11:57 +0200

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:25:04PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> The reset control API has two modes: exclusive access, where the driver
> expects to have full and immediate control over the state of the reset
> line, and shared (clock-like) access, where drivers only request reset
> deassertion while active, but don't care about the state of the reset line
> while inactive.
> 
> Commit a53e35db70d1 ("reset: Ensure drivers are explicit when requesting
> reset lines") started to transition the reset control request API calls
> to explicitly state whether the driver needs exclusive or shared reset
> control behavior.
> 
> This series converts all drivers that currently implicitly request
> exclusive reset controls to the corresponding explicit API call. It is,
> for the most part, generated from the following semantic patch:

Hey, I'm all for large api changes, but this really seems ackward, isn't
there a "better" way to do this?

Why not, as you say the "implicit" request is exclusive, just leave
everything alone and state that the "reset_control_get()" call is
exclusive and make the shared one the "odd" usage as that seems to not
be the normal case.

That should be a much smaller patch right?

That way you don't break everything here, and require 100+ patches to
just change the name of a function from one to another and do nothing
else.

thanks,

greg k-h