On 2/5/2015 4:01 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 02/05/2015 11:49 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> On 05/02/2015 19:22, Eric Nelson wrote: >> >>> >>> Certainly, but it seems wrong to make a decision about where and how >>> this might get passed to an O/S in code. >>> >>> If we want to generalize it, I'd be inclined to add commands to >>> query (into a variable) and clear the reset cause. >>> >>> That would still require this patch though. >> >> I do not think there should be a command. The cause must be directly >> associated to the variable, and the reset cause cleared. >> > > Okay. Here are two options: > > The first one stores the value in 'reset_cause' as a hex > value, and is generally more extensible: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/436972/ > > The second stores it as a human-readable string using > roughly the same names as were previously printed. > I changed the names slightly to avoid embedded whitespace > so the values can be appended to bootargs without escapes: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/436974/ > > I prefer the first, but don't have a strong opinion > one way or the other. > > Regards,
My feelings are the same. Troy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
