Dear Graeme Russ,
In message <4d8739f6.5040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> I kind of like the idea of different reset sources (CPU exception, hardware
> failure, user initiated) but agree copying the linux architecture is over
> the top.
What's the difference as far as do_reset() is concenred? It shall
just (hard) reset the system, nothing else.
> Is there any reason reset() could not take a 'reason' parameter? It could
> be a bit-mask with CPU, SOC and arch reserved bits (unhandled exception,
> user initiated, panic etc) and board specific bits
What for? To perform the intended purpose, no parameter is needed.
> Board or arch specific code could handle different reasons however they
> please (like logging it in NVRAM prior to restart, gracefully shutting down
> multiple CPU's, clearing DMA buffers etc)
That would be a layer higher than do_reset() (for example, in
panic()).
> All 'hang', 'panic', 'reset' etc code can be simplified into a single code
> path (although calling 'reset' to 'hang' is a bit odd)
hang() and reset() are intentionally very different things. A call to
hang() is supposed to hang (surprise, surprise!) infinitely. It must
not cause a reset.
panic() is a higher software layer. It probably results in calling
reset() in the end.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
- Bob Dylan
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
