All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:52:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1129 bytes --]


> That makes things quite tricky. Best I can think of is a series of boolean
> devicetree properties, such as
> 
> 	broken-reset-handler
> 	last-resort-restart-handler
> 	secondary-restart-handler
> 	default-restart-handler
> 	primary-restart-handler
> 
> which ends up being quite similar to the 'restart-priority' property. I'll
> do this as follow-up patch, though

Please CC me on this. I wanted to tackle this problem as well today. My
findings/conclusions so far:

* There is one driver bringing 'priority' directly to DT already: gpio-restart

* Watchdog priorities are board dependant

* Having the priorities clear at boot-time is safer than configuring them
  at run-time

* The linux scheme (0-255) shouldn't be enforced in DT

So, I wondered about a "priority" binding which just states "the higher,
the more important". Then any OS can decide what to do with it. In the
Linux case, this could be: sort them and give them priority 256 -
position_in_sorted_list.

Opinions?

> - I do not see the point holding up the series for this, and it is
> really a separate problem.

Ack.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:52:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net>


> That makes things quite tricky. Best I can think of is a series of boolean
> devicetree properties, such as
> 
> 	broken-reset-handler
> 	last-resort-restart-handler
> 	secondary-restart-handler
> 	default-restart-handler
> 	primary-restart-handler
> 
> which ends up being quite similar to the 'restart-priority' property. I'll
> do this as follow-up patch, though

Please CC me on this. I wanted to tackle this problem as well today. My
findings/conclusions so far:

* There is one driver bringing 'priority' directly to DT already: gpio-restart

* Watchdog priorities are board dependant

* Having the priorities clear at boot-time is safer than configuring them
  at run-time

* The linux scheme (0-255) shouldn't be enforced in DT

So, I wondered about a "priority" binding which just states "the higher,
the more important". Then any OS can decide what to do with it. In the
Linux case, this could be: sort them and give them priority 256 -
position_in_sorted_list.

Opinions?

> - I do not see the point holding up the series for this, and it is
> really a separate problem.

Ack.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160414/86dea876/attachment-0001.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-14  8:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-08 12:53 [PATCH 0/6] ARM/ARM64: Drop arm_pm_restart Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 1/6] ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 2/6] ARM: xen: " Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 15:22   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-04-08 18:20     ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 18:20     ` [Xen-devel] " Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 18:20       ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-09 23:46   ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-09 23:46     ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-09 23:56     ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-09 23:56       ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-09 23:56     ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-09 23:46   ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: " Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-12 15:36   ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-12 15:36     ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-13 11:05   ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-13 11:05     ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-13 11:24     ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-04-13 11:24       ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-04-13 13:10     ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-13 13:10       ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-13 13:22       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-04-13 13:22         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-04-14  0:42         ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-14  0:42           ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-14  8:52           ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2016-04-14  8:52             ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-14 13:21             ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-14 13:21               ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-14 14:31               ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-14 14:31                 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 4/6] ARM: " Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 5/6] ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-12 13:10   ` Catalin Marinas
2016-04-12 13:10     ` Catalin Marinas
2016-04-08 12:53 ` [PATCH 6/6] ARM: " Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 12:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-04-08 15:44 ` [PATCH 0/6] ARM/ARM64: Drop arm_pm_restart Wolfram Sang
2016-04-08 15:44   ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-08 20:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-08 20:46   ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-12 15:41 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-12 15:41   ` Wolfram Sang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160414085242.GB1533@katana \
    --to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.