Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] watchdog: aspeed: Update bootstatus handling

[Andrew Jeffery <andrew@codeconstruct.com.au>]

On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 12:50 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/18/24 04:46, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote:
> > Hi Guenter,
> > 
> > Thanks for the reply.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Guenter
> > > Roeck
> > > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 10:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] watchdog: aspeed: Update bootstatus
> > > handling
> > > 
> > > On 11/7/24 21:42, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But now, I think it will be better to add a patch for creating
> > > > a new
> > > > reset reason, e.g., WDIOF_REBOOT or WDIOF_RESTART, in
> > > > watchdog.h of
> > > > uapi. Can I include this change, creating a new reset reason,
> > > > in this
> > > > patch series? Or, should I create an extra new patch series for
> > > > this
> > > > purpose?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This is a UAPI change. That is a major change. It needs to be
> > > discussed
> > > separately, on its own, and can not be sneaked in like this.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agree. However, how to trigger this discussion? Can I just send a
> > new
> > patch separately with only this UAPI modification? This is the
> > first time
> > I change such common source code.
> > 
> 
> Yes. That needs to include arguments explaining why this specific new
> flag
> even adds value. I for my part don't immediately see that value.

So maybe I was derailed with my WDIOF_REBOOT suggestion by the proposal
to repurpose WDIOF_EXTERN1 to indicate a regular reboot. I still don't
think repurposing WDIOF_EXTERN1 is the right direction. But, perhaps
the thing to do for a regular reboot is to not set any reason flags at
all? It just depends on whether we're wanting to separate a cold boot
from a reboot (as they _may_ behave differently on Aspeed hardware), as
on a cold boot we wouldn't set any reason flags either.

Andrew