From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Nelson Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:04:27 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] common/cmd_rsmode.c: add imx reset mode command In-Reply-To: <20120621205711.05077202253@gemini.denx.de> References: <1338066111-5835-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <4FC1C403.6000409@googlemail.com> <4FC26173.9060907@boundarydevices.com> <4FC3B7A5.2080805@googlemail.com> <4FC4DC4E.9030007@boundarydevices.com> <20120604195259.8CB96204AE4@gemini.denx.de> <4FCD17A5.6030705@boundarydevices.com> <20120621205711.05077202253@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4FE4978B.5010406@boundarydevices.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 06/21/2012 03:57 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Eric Nelson, > > In message<4FCD17A5.6030705@boundarydevices.com> you wrote: >> >>> The function of the watchdog should be reserved for auch systems who >>> need it to implement security related functions; messing with it in >>> unrelated places (like setting it into unexpected states and or >>> timeouts) may cause undefined behaviour on such systems. >>> >>> Don't do it. >>> >> >> My comment is that reset_cpu() should probably not return, and >> at the moment it will. The minimum WDT timeout value is 1/2 second, so >> execution will continue for some time less than that. >> >> It seems to me that this might be a bad thing, allowing unexpected >> execution of commands in a script after the execution of the 'reset' >> command. >> >> If I understand your comment, you're saying that reset_cpu() should >> not be implemented using the watchdog. >> >> Is that right? > > No, that was not my intention. I must have missed the fact that you > were talking about reset_cpu() and only this function. Please ignore > me. > NP. I'll submit a patch to address the fact that the reset returns.