Dear Graeme Russ,
sorry for the delay.
In message you
wrote:
>
> My point was that everything can be piped through panic()
Yes, it can. But I don't think that makes sense.
> > Can you please show me a specific case where you would use such
> > different arguments to panic() in the existing c
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <4d88909a.80...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> > That would be a layer higher than do_reset() (for example, in
>> > panic()).
>>
>> Hmmm, but panic() is defined in lib/vsprintf.c with no possibility for it
>> to
Dear Graeme Russ,
In message <4d88909a.80...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> > That would be a layer higher than do_reset() (for example, in
> > panic()).
>
> Hmmm, but panic() is defined in lib/vsprintf.c with no possibility for it
> to be overridden in any arch or board specific way
I guess that cou
On 21/03/11 23:00, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <4d8739f6.5040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> I kind of like the idea of different reset sources (CPU exception, hardware
>> failure, user initiated) but agree copying the linux architecture is over
>> the top.
>
> What's
Dear Graeme Russ,
In message <4d8739f6.5040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> I kind of like the idea of different reset sources (CPU exception, hardware
> failure, user initiated) but agree copying the linux architecture is over
> the top.
What's the difference as far as do_reset() is concenred? It
On 15/03/11 09:01, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear "Moffett, Kyle D",
>
> In message <44a75130-ed4f-46d6-b0e4-12433cc15...@boeing.com> you wrote:
>>
[Snip]
I kind of like the idea of different reset sources (CPU exception, hardware
failure, user initiated) but agree copying the linux architecture is
Dear "Moffett, Kyle D",
In message <44a75130-ed4f-46d6-b0e4-12433cc15...@boeing.com> you wrote:
>
> Oh, absolutely. I do think there still needs to be a separation
> between a "normal user-initiated restart" and an "panic-time
> emergency restart" though, see further on in this email.
These term
On Mar 14, 2011, at 16:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <613c8f89-3ce5-4c28-a48e-d5c3e8143...@boeing.com> you wrote:
>>
>> If just *one* of the 2 CPUs triggers the reset then only *some* of
>> the attached hardware will be properly reset due to a hardware
>> errata, and as a result the board
Dear "Moffett, Kyle D",
In message <613c8f89-3ce5-4c28-a48e-d5c3e8143...@boeing.com> you wrote:
>
> On our boards, when the "reset" button is pressed in hardware, both
> processor modules on the board and all the attached hardware reset at
> the same time.
OK. So a sane design would provide a wa
On Mar 14, 2011, at 14:59, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message you wrote:
>> My own board needs both processor modules to synchronize resets to allow
>> them to come back up at all, which means that a "reset" may block for an
>> arbitrary amount of time waiting for the other module to cleanly shut d
Dear "Moffett, Kyle D",
In message you wrote:
>
> >> The new wrapper functions are:
> >> system_restart() - Normal system reboot (IE: user request)
> >> emergency_restart() - Critical error response (IE: panic(), etc)
> >
> > What is the difference between these two - and why do we nee
Hi!
On Mar 13, 2011, at 15:24, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <1299519462-25320-2-git-send-email-kyle.d.moff...@boeing.com> you
> wrote:
>> In preparation for making system restart use a generic set of hooks for
>> boards and architectures, we define some wrappers and weak stubs.
>>
>> The ne
Dear Kyle Moffett,
In message <1299519462-25320-2-git-send-email-kyle.d.moff...@boeing.com> you
wrote:
> In preparation for making system restart use a generic set of hooks for
> boards and architectures, we define some wrappers and weak stubs.
>
> The new wrapper functions are:
> system_resta
On Monday, March 07, 2011 18:09:25 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 16:56:31 Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
> >> On Mar 07, 2011, at 16:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:37:22 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >> >> +
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, March 07, 2011 16:56:31 Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
>> On Mar 07, 2011, at 16:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:37:22 Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> >> + udelay(5);
>> >
>> > this doesnt sit well with me. i dont
On Monday, March 07, 2011 16:56:31 Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
> On Mar 07, 2011, at 16:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:37:22 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >> + udelay(5);
> >
> > this doesnt sit well with me. i dont see why this matters ... we dont
> > have any delays today, a
On Mar 07, 2011, at 16:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:37:22 Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> +__attribute__((__noreturn__))
>> +void emergency_restart(void)
>> +{
>> +__board_emergency_restart();
>> +__arch_emergency_restart();
>> +
>> +/* Fallback to the old do_reset()
On Monday, March 07, 2011 12:37:22 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> +__attribute__((__noreturn__))
> +void emergency_restart(void)
> +{
> + __board_emergency_restart();
> + __arch_emergency_restart();
> +
> + /* Fallback to the old do_reset() until everything is converted. */
> + do_reset(NULL
In preparation for making system restart use a generic set of hooks for
boards and architectures, we define some wrappers and weak stubs.
The new wrapper functions are:
system_restart() - Normal system reboot (IE: user request)
emergency_restart() - Critical error response (IE: panic(),
19 matches
Mail list logo
