Hi,

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:34:50AM +0000, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> On 23/01/2019 at 19:34, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:57:42AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> >> Add support for additional reset causes and the proper compatibility
> >> string for sam9x60 SoC. The restart function is the same as the samx7.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
> >> index f44a9ffcc2ab..44ca983a49a1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c
> >> @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ enum reset_type {
> >>   	RESET_TYPE_WATCHDOG	= 2,
> >>   	RESET_TYPE_SOFTWARE	= 3,
> >>   	RESET_TYPE_USER		= 4,
> >> +	RESET_TYPE_CPU_FAIL	= 6,
> >> +	RESET_TYPE_XTAL_FAIL	= 7,
> >> +	RESET_TYPE_ULP2		= 8,
> > 
> > what happened to 5? :)
> 
> That a good question ;-)
> 
> It's marked as "Reserved"... which opens up a whole new field of 
> speculation :-)

Ok :)

> [..]
> 
> >>   	{ .compatible = "atmel,samx7-rstc", .data = samx7_restart },
> >> +	{ .compatible = "microchip,sam9x60-rstc", .data = samx7_restart },
> >>   	{ /* sentinel */ }
> >>   };
> >>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, at91_reset_of_match);
> > 
> > Patch looks fine to me. But I will wait a bit with merging, so that
> > Alexandre or Ludovic have a chance to provide feedback.
> 
> What about merging this patch with the whole series through the at91 
> then arm-soc trees?

It seems to be possible to merge this standalone, but merging
through at91/arm-soc is also fine with me.

Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>

-- Sebastian