From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:15:56 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Rename reset to sysreset In-Reply-To: <20160512204718.2107A100879@atlas.denx.de> References: <1463076215-27228-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20160512204718.2107A100879@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <5735009C.8010104@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 05/12/2016 02:47 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Stephen, > > In message <1463076215-27228-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: >> >> The current reset API implements a method to reset the entire system. >> In the near future, I'd like to introduce code that implements the device >> tree reset bindings; i.e. the equivalent of the Linux kernel's reset API. >> This controls resets to individual HW blocks or external chips with reset >> signals. It doesn't make sense to merge the two APIs into one since they >> have different semantic purposes. Resolve the naming conflict by renaming >> the existing reset API to sysreset instead, so the new reset API can be >> called just reset. > > What about the "reset" command? This cannot be easily renamed (not > without breaking backward compatibility). Do you feel this is an > issue, or can we just ignore that here? As you say, it's best not to change the cmdline syntax to avoid compatibility issues. I think we can ignore this; in the context of a bootloader command-line, I'd expect "reset" to do a system reset, and any debug commands related to any new reset subsystem (if there end up being any) to get some other name that's a bit less of a "land grab" for a common name.