ARM: zynq: Add function to get reboot status register value.

Signed-off-by Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>

---
Hi Michal,

I was planning to use this in future to boot into recovery mode. The change is small enough I feel that we could directly take it. If you want to hold off until there's a user that's fine for me, too.

Cheers,

Moritz

---
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c +0 -0

index 05f4099..709711a 100644
@@ -166,6 +166,11 @@ u32 zynq_slcr_get_boot_mode(void)
 	return readl(&slcr_base->boot_mode);

Quoted 23 lines · Moritz Fischer

Signed-off-by Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>

---
Hi Michal,

I was planning to use this in future to boot into recovery mode. The change is small enough I feel that we could directly take it. If you want to hold off until there's a user that's fine for me, too.

Cheers,

Moritz

---
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c +0 -0

index 05f4099..709711a 100644
@@ -166,6 +166,11 @@ u32 zynq_slcr_get_boot_mode(void)
      return readl(&slcr_base->boot_mode);
 }
 

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c u32 zynq_slcr_get_boot_mode(void) · line 176

Quoted 9 lines

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c +5 -0

+u32 zynq_slcr_get_reboot_status(void)
+{
+     return readl(&slcr_base->reboot_status);
+}
+
 u32 zynq_slcr_get_idcode(void)
 {
      return (readl(&slcr_base->pss_idcode) & SLCR_IDCODE_MASK) >>

Isn't this generating sparse warning if it is not used and declared?

Hi Michal,

Quoted 24 lines · Michal Simek

Quoted 23 lines · Moritz Fischer

Signed-off-by Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>

---
Hi Michal,

I was planning to use this in future to boot into recovery mode. The change is small enough I feel that we could directly take it. If you want to hold off until there's a user that's fine for me, too.

Cheers,

Moritz

---
 arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c +0 -0

index 05f4099..709711a 100644
@@ -166,6 +166,11 @@ u32 zynq_slcr_get_boot_mode(void)
      return readl(&slcr_base->boot_mode);
 }
 

Quoted 11 lines

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c u32 zynq_slcr_get_boot_mode(void) · line 176

Quoted 9 lines

arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c +5 -0

+u32 zynq_slcr_get_reboot_status(void)
+{
+     return readl(&slcr_base->reboot_status);
+}
+
 u32 zynq_slcr_get_idcode(void)
 {
      return (readl(&slcr_base->pss_idcode) & SLCR_IDCODE_MASK) >>

Isn't this generating sparse warning if it is not used and declared?

Derp. It doesn't generate a warning for not being used, however for not being declared it does,
the entry in sys_proto.h is missing:

CHECK arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: warning: cast to restricted __le32 arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: expected unsigned int volatile
[unsigned] <noident>
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:169:5: warning: symbol 'zynq_slcr_get_reboot_status' was not declared. Should it be static?
CC arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.o
LD arch/arm/mach-zynq/built-in.o

when added to header this becomes:

CHECK arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: warning: cast to restricted __le32 arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: expected unsigned int volatile
[unsigned] <noident>
arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.c:97:9: got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
CC arch/arm/mach-zynq/slcr.o
LD arch/arm/mach-zynq/built-in.o

These were there before ;-)

I can resend with the header line added,

Moritz