On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:48:10AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hello Sascha,
>
> On 6/8/20 7:20 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 03:32:35PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > Yes, right
>
> I took look at this and I don't really like the approach.
> I am wary of changing barebox API in subtle ways that breaks external
> users. The existing solution doesn't have this problem. Reset handlers
> without a specific name will be called reset0, reset1.. instead
> of default. Could this be merged as-is?
Just did that.
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
