On 04/17/2013 12:48 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> Did you see my response I sent this morning?
>
I did not, although I just read it.
I have a hard time seeing maintaining backwards/forwards compatibility
as "very wrong" ... it would seem like a pretty major concern. In
comparison losing the currently nonexistent /sys file seems like a
rather minor issue.
My suggestion would be to have a universal parser for reboot= and have
the arch functions fed data in already parsed form.
> I would really like to try and remove the apparently unused reboot=
> parameter from arm and unicore32 as well. Does anybody have a concern
> with that? That should make documenting slightly easier.
You have to ask the arm and unicore32 maintainers that, obviously.
>> Furthermore that word "cpuid" that you keep using, I don't think it
>> means what you think it means...
>
> If we stayed with the core_param, would you prefer reboot_processor=###
> over reboot_cpuid=###?
reboot_cpu=<n>
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
