From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751051AbcHAEUP (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 00:20:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:32883 "EHLO mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbcHAEUI (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 00:20:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 14:03:51 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Andrey Smirnov Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott Wood , Alessio Igor Bogani , Paul Mackerras , Daniel Axtens Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Convert fsl_rstcr_restart to a reset handler Message-ID: <20160801140351.49119867@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1469747238-17432-3-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> References: <1469747238-17432-1-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <1469747238-17432-3-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:07:18 -0700 Andrey Smirnov wrote: > Convert fsl_rstcr_restart into a function to be registered with > register_reset_handler(). > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov > --- > > Changes since v1: > > - fsl_rstcr_restart is registered as a reset handler in > setup_rstcr, replacing per-board arch_initcall approach Bear in mind I don't know much about the embedded or platform code! The documentation for reset notifiers says that they are expected to be registered from drivers, not arch code. That seems to only be intended to mean that the standard ISA or platform reset would normally be handled directly by the arch, whereas if you have an arch specific driver for a reset hardware that just happens to live under arch/, then fsl_rstcr_restart / mpc85xx_cds_restart would be valid use of reset notifier. So this change seems reasonable to me. One small question: > +static int mpc85xx_cds_restart_register(void) > +{ > + static struct notifier_block restart_handler; > + > + restart_handler.notifier_call = mpc85xx_cds_restart; > + restart_handler.priority = 192; Should there be a header with #define's for these priorities? Thanks, Nick