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.
> 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.
> The rest looks good and I have also tested it.
Great!
> BTW: was also thinking about syscon-reboot option but it doesn't fit to
> our reset sequence. :-(
Because of the code that handles this?
/*
* Clear 0x0F000000 bits of reboot status register to workaround
* the FSBL not loading the bitstream after soft-reboot
* This is a temporary solution until we know more.
*/
Has this FSBL bug been addressed?
I suspect we could also drop the zynq_slcr_unlock() as well...we unlock
the SLCR early at boot and don't lock it, AFAICT.
With those two pieces dropped, I think we'd fit the syscon-reboot model.
Josh
--
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/
