Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:34:50AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On 23/01/2019 at 19:34, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:57:42AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> Add support for additional reset causes and the proper compatibility > >> string for sam9x60 SoC. The restart function is the same as the samx7. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >> b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >> index f44a9ffcc2ab..44ca983a49a1 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c > >> @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ enum reset_type { > >> RESET_TYPE_WATCHDOG = 2, > >> RESET_TYPE_SOFTWARE = 3, > >> RESET_TYPE_USER = 4, > >> + RESET_TYPE_CPU_FAIL = 6, > >> + RESET_TYPE_XTAL_FAIL = 7, > >> + RESET_TYPE_ULP2 = 8, > > > > what happened to 5? :) > > That a good question ;-) > > It's marked as "Reserved"... which opens up a whole new field of > speculation :-)
Ok :)
> [..]
>
> >> { .compatible = "atmel,samx7-rstc", .data = samx7_restart },
> >> + { .compatible = "microchip,sam9x60-rstc", .data = samx7_restart },
> >> { /* sentinel */ }
> >> };
> >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, at91_reset_of_match);
> >
> > Patch looks fine to me. But I will wait a bit with merging, so that
> > Alexandre or Ludovic have a chance to provide feedback.
>
> What about merging this patch with the whole series through the at91
> then arm-soc trees?
It seems to be possible to merge this standalone, but merging
through at91/arm-soc is also fine with me.
Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <[email protected]>
-- Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
