From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754741AbcDNIxe (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 04:53:34 -0400 Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:41492 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754699AbcDNIxa (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 04:53:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:52:43 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler Message-ID: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> References: <1460120039-2497-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1460120039-2497-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20160413110519.GE32018@leverpostej> <570E4550.5000207@roeck-us.net> <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > That makes things quite tricky. Best I can think of is a series of boolean > devicetree properties, such as >=20 > broken-reset-handler > last-resort-restart-handler > secondary-restart-handler > default-restart-handler > primary-restart-handler >=20 > 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-rest= art * 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. --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJXD1paAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2AqQP/3eZ7yBpi20BZ6FIAiWYm6O2 RgEU7M8M6/xvr9qpEdHLwZaHIlR2AlBiULhKc/6bXWcDRBy2OXHNdOjw6DFXRVCH +M1avXIc7TGJieSxS8GxRDiKw7NwEd3MOL410OLqVLM3tdjtC3ZNfldHW78G6F+z v9lx9wHbVFn386RzFyQQU9GiWqiPe8nez/yOhZL0Y9nx8k39R7AEj3aV0156CBkg o75hbGwu1GNaoHnhGo0VKToeGIJRwVIdxQQNatCUDzDWc7QaSk4Dmq+dNssQZG05 wLv6OxHRfs2U/hv3ej5CSuXM76hqFzJ7ivmewCupb0WBS4z3ZF8eETh5oq3oJKL0 DjMCeaRruu5CtdicFS+tAbpQCKMhKS8VcvIxq2qABBcBF3JIfrSWysByzC7UBCbg HnmDmvrxdhpcHnHFPsUTYrVzq+vSXd4GBTu/TH263jD+l5qp7untGPz7f0puZMzF sf+FJ2/Sb5x2Qsfz51AZfXu81yh1K9rji5JfmTcn60tDHZslPG5zpAY5Dp9obpGo FCHVUlj9dDlBRmD14L6XUMlfnK5e8vzvcsmAAGL/4blCKBzEDR21TvRZfygRmf65 Fjh9h2pYGhFnomHgGlhG6KPmLRTkrZu3R27GpuSORP9ry0RSM93iXj00ECbtkvsW tPHgOQ0aV7wcCO8rnfdn =RDE3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:52:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler In-Reply-To: <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net> References: <1460120039-2497-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1460120039-2497-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20160413110519.GE32018@leverpostej> <570E4550.5000207@roeck-us.net> <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > 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: