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

[Arnd Bergmann]

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