Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] pwm: tegra: Simplify using devm_reset_control_get_exclusive_deasserted()

On Di, 2026-07-14 at 14:02 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> This function ensures the reset is already deasserted at probe time and
> asserted at unbind. So the remove function and the error paths in the
> probe function can be simplified accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c | 14 ++++----------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> index e99e1c5b18c3..d7f4baa4cd9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tegra.c
> @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ struct tegra_pwm_soc {
>  
>  struct tegra_pwm_chip {
>  	struct clk *clk;
> -	struct reset_control*rst;
>  
>  	unsigned long clk_rate;
>  	unsigned long min_period_ns;
> @@ -319,6 +318,7 @@ static int tegra_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	struct pwm_chip *chip;
>  	struct tegra_pwm_chip *pc;
> +	struct reset_control*rst;

You could use this opportunity to add a space between reset_control and
*rst.

>  	const struct tegra_pwm_soc *soc;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -391,20 +391,17 @@ static int tegra_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	pc->min_period_ns =
>  	    (NSEC_PER_SEC / (pc->clk_rate / TEGRA_PWM_DEPTH)) + 1;
>  
> -	pc->rst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, "pwm");
> -	if (IS_ERR(pc->rst)) {
> -		ret = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->rst), "Failed to get reset control\n");
> +	rst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive_deasserted(dev, "pwm");
> +	if (IS_ERR(rst)) {
> +		ret = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rst), "Failed to get reset control\n");
>  		goto put_pm;
>  	}
>  
> -	reset_control_deassert(pc->rst);
> -
>  	chip->ops = &tegra_pwm_ops;
>  
>  	ret = pwmchip_add(chip);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Adding pwmchip failed\n");
> -		reset_control_assert(pc->rst);

With this change, pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() and
pm_runtime_force_suspend() are called before the reset control is
asserted again in the error case. Is this safe?

regards
Philipp