Hello Sascha,
On 6/3/20 9:11 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:57:55AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Follow-up commit allows referencing specific restart handler by name.
>> Restart handlers default to "default" as name when none is given.
>> Number them sequentially instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> common/restart.c | 4 +++-
>> include/restart.h | 1 -
>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/restart.c b/common/restart.c
>> index b19ae54657c0..dd15c8d5c362 100644
>> --- a/common/restart.c
>> +++ b/common/restart.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> #include <of.h>
>>
>> static LIST_HEAD(restart_handler_list);
>> +static unsigned resetidx;
>>
>> /**
>> * restart_handler_register() - register a handler for restarting the system
>> @@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(restart_handler_list);
>> int restart_handler_register(struct restart_handler *rst)
>> {
>> if (!rst->name)
>> - rst->name = RESTART_DEFAULT_NAME;
>> + rst->name = basprintf("reset%u", resetidx);
>
> With this most existing restart handlers get a unique name, but in the
> next patch you give most of them the same name. I am not sure where this
> is aiming at.
I haven't exhaustively checked, but the resets given descriptive names
in the previous commit are all singletons: There shouldn't be two of them
in the same build. If there are, the solution isn't a soc0 and soc1 reset,
but instead they need more descriptive names.
> With the next patch every restart handler has a name, so why is the name
> still optional?
I guess I can just make it mandatory and error out with a warning on
registration time?
Cheers
Ahmad
>
> Sascha
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
