Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:37:05 -0500 | From | Josh Cartwright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: zynq: use restart_handler mechanism for slcr reset |
| |
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:19:01PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > On 03/19/2015 01:44 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >> On 02/27/2015 04:09 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > [..] > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c > >>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > >>> */ > >>> > >>> #include <linux/io.h> > >>> +#include <linux/reboot.h> > >>> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> > >>> #include <linux/of_address.h> > >>> #include <linux/regmap.h> > >>> @@ -91,10 +92,9 @@ u32 zynq_slcr_get_device_id(void) > >>> return val; > >>> } > >>> > >>> -/** > >>> - * zynq_slcr_system_reset - Reset the entire system. > >>> - */ > >>> -void zynq_slcr_system_reset(void) > >>> +static > >>> +int zynq_slcr_system_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, > >>> + unsigned long action, void *data) > >>> { > >> > >> First of all sorry for delay. > > > > No problem. I suspect ZynqMP is keeping you busy. > > yes. > > > > >> Any reason to remove kernel-doc format? > > > > It didn't seem to provide anything meaningful, as it was just a > > restatement of the function name, and since this function has become > > static, it makes even less sense. > > Even static function can do something interesting. The whole file > is using kernel-doc that's why please also keep it here. If any function > misses it then it is just a bug.
Okay, sure. Sent out a v3 with the kerneldoc updated.
[..] > > > > Has this FSBL bug been addressed? > > To be honest the problem is that there could be users in the field which uses > old fsbl and will start to deal with this problem.
Yeah, I suppose we're destined to carry it for long time.
Thanks, Josh
| |