linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] wdt: sunxi: Move restart code to the watchdog driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <19870078.UBj78UMBrO@wuerfel>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:42:47 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>, wim@...ana.be,
	dbaryshkov@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] wdt: sunxi: Move restart code to the watchdog driver

On Monday 23 June 2014 07:30:56 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 06/23/2014 03:31 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:12:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:34:44PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:04:22PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>
> >> The patches _are_ in my watchdog-next branch and get some coverage from
> >> both my auto-builders and from Fenguang's build robots, so while they are
> >> not in linux-next, they are not completely in the dark either.
> >
> > So, this patch finally didn't make it into 3.16. Great. Now, we can't
> > even reboot the boards.
> >
> > Given how it's just impossible to get something merged reliably
> > through the watchdog tree, I guess I should just start merging the
> > patches through mine?
> >
> 
> You can not really blame Wim here.
> 
> In this case, I suspect the major reason for not accepting the patch
> is that I tried to provide a clean method / API for "reset through watchdog
> subsystem", which went nowhere, in my understanding because someone objected
> that it would be the wrong thing to do [1] and it didn't get approval /
> acceptance from the arm maintainers. If it is wrong to reset the board
> from the watchdog subsystem in a clean way, it is for sure even more wrong
> to do it as you proposed in your patch.
> 
> My conclusion therefore is that all board reset code should move back out
> of the watchdog subsystem, and that we should not accept such code in the
> future. This is not my personal preference, but I do believe that we should
> do it in a clean way or not at all.

Moved to where?

I certainly don't want it in the platform directories, and for arm64 we
intentionally don't have a place to put this stuff.

drivers/power/reset would be an option, but then we have to solve the
problem of loading two drivers for one device first.

	Arnd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/