On 9 July 2015 at 17:16, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:31:40 +0200 >> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> wrote: >>> OTOH, this is less code than I expected. With the following code, I see >>> the diag288 reset callback called on system reset. If this looks good, >>> I can resend as a proper patch; we can reduce Xu's patch to the >>> io_subsystem_reset() part in that case. Opinions? >> > > I'm for sending that new core patch, as I'm suspicious I can make it > fail in other places than your diag case. Runtime reset is poorly > exercised code so I think you are going to pickup half-a-dozen > bugfixes here.
FWIW this patch would mean we would try to call dc->reset on the ARM CPU devices; the only reason this doesn't cause a problem is that those devices don't happen to register a dc->reset function pointer. (It's this sort of "now we start calling a reset method on a device that was probably doing its own reset via another path" that meant I wasn't too keen on it for 2.4, though quite possibly it would work out better than the ad-hoc reset we have currently in the longer term...) -- PMM
