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

[Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>]

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.

Thanks,
Andrey