[GIT PULL v2] Reset controller API

[Philipp Zabel]

Hi Olof,

Am Donnerstag, den 11.04.2013, 03:25 -0700 schrieb Olof Johansson:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:19:34AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >> Hi Olof,
> >>
> >> I have added two fixes on top of the reset series at
> >> git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git reset/for_v3.10.
> >> Could you pull them in together with the rest?
> >>
> >> The following changes since commit 8bb9660418e05bb1845ac1a2428444d78e322cc7:
> >>
> >>   Linux 3.9-rc4 (2013-03-23 16:52:44 -0700)
> >>
> >> are available in the git repository at:
> >>
> >>   git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git reset/for_v3.10
> >>
> >> for you to fetch changes up to fbdb93ecb869f02a5f8f145fa06a0984c415a7d4:
> >>
> >>   Documentation: gpio-reset.txt: Fix 'initially-in-reset' example (2013-04-09 09:55:00 +0200)
> >>
> >> They add a simple API for devices to request being reset by separate
> >> reset controller hardware and implement the reset signal device tree
> >> bindings proposed by Stephen Warren.
> >> The patches have been discussed on the linux-arm-kernel list under the topic
> >> "Reset controller API to reset IP modules on i.MX5 and i.MX6".
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Dan Carpenter (1):
> >>       reset: NULL deref on allocation failure
> >>
> >> Fabio Estevam (1):
> >>       Documentation: gpio-reset.txt: Fix 'initially-in-reset' example
> >>
> >> Philipp Zabel (2):
> >>       reset: Add reset controller API
> >>       reset: Add driver for gpio-controlled reset pins
> >>
> >> Stephen Warren (1):
> >>       dt: describe base reset signal binding
> >
> > Hmm, I don't see an ack or reviewed-by on these subsystem bindings from
> > neither Rob nor Grant.
> >
> > Since it's a brand new subsystem binding, I'd like to see them ack it
> > before we pick it up.
> 
> Sigh. Ok, so I now stumbled across the Ack from Rob that you didn't
> pick up. Don't do it like that again, please. If Shawn prematurely
> bases his code on top of unacked patches, then that's his problem, not
> yours.

Sorry I didn't notice that Rob's ack didn't have you in Cc. So shall I
leave the dt binding patch untouched this time? I'll take note of this
for the future.

> The problem still remains though, since the gpio-reset binding hasn't
> seen an ack on the list, as far as I can tell. And I'll have a comment
> on that as well in a minute, see separate reply on that patch.

Ok. What would you have me do now? I could revert the gpio-reset patch
(possibly asking Shawn to pull that, too), and have it do another round
on the list instead. Or I could address your comments with a relative
patch, and put that on top.

thanks
Philipp