From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:32:09 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] common/cmd_rsmode.c: add imx reset mode command In-Reply-To: <4FE4978B.5010406@boundarydevices.com> 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> <4FE4978B.5010406@boundarydevices.com> Message-ID: <4FFD1DE9.9010600@de.bosch.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 22.06.2012 18:04, Eric Nelson wrote: > 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. Ping on this whole patch series ;) Best regards Dirk