On 05/02/2014 03:01 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Guenter, This looks pretty sensible to me (and the arm/arm64 bits look fine too), but I have one question below... On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 04:41:29PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:Some hardware implements reboot through its watchdog hardware, for example by triggering a watchdog timeout. Platform specific code starts to spread into watchdog drivers, typically by setting pointers to a callback functions which is then called from the platform reset handler. To simplify code and provide a unified API to trigger reboots by watchdog drivers, provide a single API to trigger such reboots through the watchdog subsystem. Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ include/linux/watchdog.h | 11 +++++++++++ 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c b/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c index cec9b55..4ec6e2f 100644 --- a/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c +++ b/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_core.c @@ -43,6 +43,17 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(watchdog_ida); static struct class *watchdog_class; +static struct watchdog_device *wdd_reboot_dev; + +void watchdog_do_reboot(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) +{ + if (wdd_reboot_dev) { + if (wdd_reboot_dev->ops->reboot) + wdd_reboot_dev->ops->reboot(wdd_reboot_dev, mode, cmd); + } +}What reboot_mode values would you expect a watchdog to support other than REBOOT_HARD? Also, is the cmd even useful here?
Answer is "I don't know" in both cases. I thought about dropping the parameters, but then I thought it does not hurt to have them around either. I am open to suggestions and to dropping the parameters if everyone agrees that they are useless. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
