[PATCH 1/3] common: restart: number unnamed restart handlers

[Ahmad Fatoum]

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 at pengutronix.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>  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?

> 
> Regards,
>   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 |