From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hBOxD-0004el-Ut for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 19:20:17 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 21:20:11 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Message-ID: <20190402192011.GB5916@ravnborg.org> References: <20190401101822.7392-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190401101822.7392-6-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190402173810.GB18142@ravnborg.org> <5cee40c5-5473-d878-befc-bf758a7c849c@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5cee40c5-5473-d878-befc-bf758a7c849c@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/15] ARM: at91: watchdog: implement at91_wdt_disable To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:39:56PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Sam, > > On 2/4/19 19:38, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > Hi Ahmad. > > > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:18:13PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >> Low level init code might want to disable the watchdog in PBL. > >> Provide a helper to do so. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum > >> --- > >> arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_wdt.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_wdt.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_wdt.h > >> index 36d37b9d2d64..d295d35d1b5c 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_wdt.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_wdt.h > >> @@ -35,4 +35,20 @@ > >> #define AT91_WDT_WDUNF (1 << 0) /* Watchdog Underflow */ > >> #define AT91_WDT_WDERR (1 << 1) /* Watchdog Error */ > >> > >> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-1-Clause > >> +/* > >> + * Copyright (c) 2006, Atmel Corporation > >> + */ > >> + > >> +#include > >> + > >> +static inline void at91_wdt_disable(void __iomem *wdt_base) > > > > As we are copying a lot of code from at91bootstrap could > > we then use the same name for this function: > > driver/at91_wdt.c:void at91_disable_wdt(void) > > ${arch}_${subsystem}_${function} seems to be the usual naming scheme > for "globals". Why differ? I don't see the utility of copying > the at91bootstrap name. Yeah, keep it in line with barebox is better. It was more a something I stumbled upon comment. Here you can also add my: Reviewed-by: Sam Ravnborg Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox