Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: Convert fsl_rstcr_restart to a reset handler

[Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:47:37 -0700
Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:07:18 -0700
> > Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Convert fsl_rstcr_restart into a function to be registered with
> >> register_reset_handler().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> 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.  
> 
> Yeah, IMHO there's quite a bit of code in sysdev/ which in ideal world
> would go into drivers/ and I think fsl_rstcr_restart is among it
> (similar example on MIPS is drivers/power/reset/brcmstb-reboot.c).
> 
> >
> > 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?  
> 
> I don't have any strong preference either way, I do however think that
> introducing such #define should go into a separate patch-set, since
> you'd probably want to propagate that change across all of the users
> of the API.

You're probably right. I was thinking because powerpc has not used it
before we could use local defines, but it really does need a global
location.

Thanks,
Nick