[PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

Hi everyone,

This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
power off.

Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.

Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.

Thanks,
Thierry

Guenter Roeck (6):
  ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler
  drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
  ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()

 arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h   |  1 -
 arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c             |  6 +-----
 arch/arm/kernel/setup.c              | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c          | 11 +++++++++--
 arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c             | 13 +++++++++++--
 arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h |  2 --
 arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          |  7 +------
 drivers/firmware/psci.c              | 11 +++++++++--
 8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

Hi everyone,

This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
power off.

Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.

Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.

Thanks,
Thierry

Guenter Roeck (6):
  ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler
  drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM: Register with kernel restart handler
  ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
  ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()

 arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h   |  1 -
 arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c             |  6 +-----
 arch/arm/kernel/setup.c              | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c          | 11 +++++++++--
 arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c             | 13 +++++++++++--
 arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h |  2 --
 arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          |  7 +------
 drivers/firmware/psci.c              | 11 +++++++++--
 8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 1/6] ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly. By doing this, the prima2 reset handler can be prioritized
among other restart methods available on a particular board.

Select a high priority of 192 since the original code overwrites the
default arm restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c b/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
index 7c251eb11d01..1639997c5b49 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
@@ -65,11 +65,18 @@ static struct reset_controller_dev sirfsoc_reset_controller = {
 
 #define SIRFSOC_SYS_RST_BIT  BIT(31)
 
-static void sirfsoc_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
+static int sirfsoc_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+			   void *data)
 {
 	writel(SIRFSOC_SYS_RST_BIT, sirfsoc_rstc_base);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block sirfsoc_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call  = sirfsoc_restart,
+	.priority       = 192,
+};
+
 static int sirfsoc_rstc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
@@ -80,7 +87,7 @@ static int sirfsoc_rstc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	sirfsoc_reset_controller.of_node = np;
-	arm_pm_restart = sirfsoc_restart;
+	register_restart_handler(&sirfsoc_restart_nb);
 
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER))
 		reset_controller_register(&sirfsoc_reset_controller);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 1/6] ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly. By doing this, the prima2 reset handler can be prioritized
among other restart methods available on a particular board.

Select a high priority of 192 since the original code overwrites the
default arm restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c b/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
index 7c251eb11d01..1639997c5b49 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c
@@ -65,11 +65,18 @@ static struct reset_controller_dev sirfsoc_reset_controller = {
 
 #define SIRFSOC_SYS_RST_BIT  BIT(31)
 
-static void sirfsoc_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
+static int sirfsoc_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+			   void *data)
 {
 	writel(SIRFSOC_SYS_RST_BIT, sirfsoc_rstc_base);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block sirfsoc_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call  = sirfsoc_restart,
+	.priority       = 192,
+};
+
 static int sirfsoc_rstc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
@@ -80,7 +87,7 @@ static int sirfsoc_rstc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	sirfsoc_reset_controller.of_node = np;
-	arm_pm_restart = sirfsoc_restart;
+	register_restart_handler(&sirfsoc_restart_nb);
 
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER))
 		reset_controller_register(&sirfsoc_reset_controller);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 2/6] ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly.

Select a high priority of 192 to ensure that default restart handlers
are replaced if Xen is running.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
index 11d9f2898b16..85d678e1d826 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/console.h>
 #include <linux/pvclock_gtod.h>
+#include <linux/reboot.h>
 #include <linux/time64.h>
 #include <linux/timekeeping.h>
 #include <linux/timekeeper_internal.h>
@@ -191,14 +192,22 @@ static int xen_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void xen_restart(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
+static int xen_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+		       void *data)
 {
 	struct sched_shutdown r = { .reason = SHUTDOWN_reboot };
 	int rc;
 	rc = HYPERVISOR_sched_op(SCHEDOP_shutdown, &r);
 	BUG_ON(rc);
+
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block xen_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = xen_restart,
+	.priority = 192,
+};
+
 static void xen_power_off(void)
 {
 	struct sched_shutdown r = { .reason = SHUTDOWN_poweroff };
@@ -423,7 +432,7 @@ static int __init xen_pm_init(void)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
 	pm_power_off = xen_power_off;
-	arm_pm_restart = xen_restart;
+	register_restart_handler(&xen_restart_nb);
 	if (!xen_initial_domain()) {
 		struct timespec64 ts;
 		xen_read_wallclock(&ts);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 2/6] ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly.

Select a high priority of 192 to ensure that default restart handlers
are replaced if Xen is running.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
index 11d9f2898b16..85d678e1d826 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/console.h>
 #include <linux/pvclock_gtod.h>
+#include <linux/reboot.h>
 #include <linux/time64.h>
 #include <linux/timekeeping.h>
 #include <linux/timekeeper_internal.h>
@@ -191,14 +192,22 @@ static int xen_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void xen_restart(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
+static int xen_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+		       void *data)
 {
 	struct sched_shutdown r = { .reason = SHUTDOWN_reboot };
 	int rc;
 	rc = HYPERVISOR_sched_op(SCHEDOP_shutdown, &r);
 	BUG_ON(rc);
+
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block xen_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = xen_restart,
+	.priority = 192,
+};
+
 static void xen_power_off(void)
 {
 	struct sched_shutdown r = { .reason = SHUTDOWN_poweroff };
@@ -423,7 +432,7 @@ static int __init xen_pm_init(void)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
 	pm_power_off = xen_power_off;
-	arm_pm_restart = xen_restart;
+	register_restart_handler(&xen_restart_nb);
 	if (!xen_initial_domain()) {
 		struct timespec64 ts;
 		xen_read_wallclock(&ts);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly. This enables support for replacing the PSCI restart handler
with a different handler if necessary for a specific board.

Select a priority of 129 to indicate a higher than default priority, but
keep it as low as possible since PSCI reset is known to fail on some
boards.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/firmware/psci.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
index 66a8793f3b37..ce9814462ce0 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/psci.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
@@ -232,11 +232,18 @@ static int get_set_conduit_method(struct device_node *np)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void psci_sys_reset(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
+static int psci_sys_reset(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+			  void *data)
 {
 	invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_RESET, 0, 0, 0);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block psci_sys_reset_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = psci_sys_reset,
+	.priority = 129,
+};
+
 static void psci_sys_poweroff(void)
 {
 	invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0);
@@ -513,7 +520,7 @@ static void __init psci_0_2_set_functions(void)
 
 	psci_ops.migrate_info_type = psci_migrate_info_type;
 
-	arm_pm_restart = psci_sys_reset;
+	register_restart_handler(&psci_sys_reset_nb);
 
 	pm_power_off = psci_sys_poweroff;
 }
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart
directly. This enables support for replacing the PSCI restart handler
with a different handler if necessary for a specific board.

Select a priority of 129 to indicate a higher than default priority, but
keep it as low as possible since PSCI reset is known to fail on some
boards.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/firmware/psci.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
index 66a8793f3b37..ce9814462ce0 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/psci.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
@@ -232,11 +232,18 @@ static int get_set_conduit_method(struct device_node *np)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void psci_sys_reset(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
+static int psci_sys_reset(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+			  void *data)
 {
 	invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_RESET, 0, 0, 0);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
+static struct notifier_block psci_sys_reset_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = psci_sys_reset,
+	.priority = 129,
+};
+
 static void psci_sys_poweroff(void)
 {
 	invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0);
@@ -513,7 +520,7 @@ static void __init psci_0_2_set_functions(void)
 
 	psci_ops.migrate_info_type = psci_migrate_info_type;
 
-	arm_pm_restart = psci_sys_reset;
+	register_restart_handler(&psci_sys_reset_nb);
 
 	pm_power_off = psci_sys_poweroff;
 }
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 4/6] ARM: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

By making use of the kernel restart handler, board specific restart
handlers can be prioritized amongst available mechanisms for a particular
board or system.

Select the default priority of 128 to indicate that the restart callback
in the machine description is the default restart mechanism.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
index f4e54503afa9..cc4f9564f4e3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
@@ -1058,6 +1058,20 @@ void __init hyp_mode_check(void)
 #endif
 }
 
+static void (*__arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
+
+static int arm_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+		       void *data)
+{
+	__arm_pm_restart(action, data);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block arm_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = arm_restart,
+	.priority = 128,
+};
+
 void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 {
 	const struct machine_desc *mdesc;
@@ -1107,8 +1121,10 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 	paging_init(mdesc);
 	request_standard_resources(mdesc);
 
-	if (mdesc->restart)
-		arm_pm_restart = mdesc->restart;
+	if (mdesc->restart) {
+		__arm_pm_restart = mdesc->restart;
+		register_restart_handler(&arm_restart_nb);
+	}
 
 	unflatten_device_tree();
 
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 4/6] ARM: Register with kernel restart handler

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

By making use of the kernel restart handler, board specific restart
handlers can be prioritized amongst available mechanisms for a particular
board or system.

Select the default priority of 128 to indicate that the restart callback
in the machine description is the default restart mechanism.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
index f4e54503afa9..cc4f9564f4e3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
@@ -1058,6 +1058,20 @@ void __init hyp_mode_check(void)
 #endif
 }
 
+static void (*__arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
+
+static int arm_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
+		       void *data)
+{
+	__arm_pm_restart(action, data);
+	return NOTIFY_DONE;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block arm_restart_nb = {
+	.notifier_call = arm_restart,
+	.priority = 128,
+};
+
 void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 {
 	const struct machine_desc *mdesc;
@@ -1107,8 +1121,10 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 	paging_init(mdesc);
 	request_standard_resources(mdesc);
 
-	if (mdesc->restart)
-		arm_pm_restart = mdesc->restart;
+	if (mdesc->restart) {
+		__arm_pm_restart = mdesc->restart;
+		register_restart_handler(&arm_restart_nb);
+	}
 
 	unflatten_device_tree();
 
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 5/6] ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

All users of arm_pm_restart() have been converted to use the kernel
restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h | 2 --
 arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          | 7 +------
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
index bc812435bc76..97398214061f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
@@ -43,8 +43,6 @@ struct mm_struct;
 extern void show_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr);
 extern void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *);
 
-extern void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
-
 #define show_unhandled_signals_ratelimited()				\
 ({									\
 	static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs,				\
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
index 0b07d42819da..138918269b3a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
@@ -68,8 +68,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_guard);
 void (*pm_power_off)(void);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_power_off);
 
-void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
-
 /*
  * This is our default idle handler.
  */
@@ -155,10 +153,7 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
 		efi_reboot(reboot_mode, NULL);
 
 	/* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */
-	if (arm_pm_restart)
-		arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd);
-	else
-		do_kernel_restart(cmd);
+	do_kernel_restart(cmd);
 
 	/*
 	 * Whoops - the architecture was unable to reboot.
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 5/6] ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

All users of arm_pm_restart() have been converted to use the kernel
restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h | 2 --
 arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          | 7 +------
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
index bc812435bc76..97398214061f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h
@@ -43,8 +43,6 @@ struct mm_struct;
 extern void show_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr);
 extern void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *);
 
-extern void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
-
 #define show_unhandled_signals_ratelimited()				\
 ({									\
 	static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs,				\
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
index 0b07d42819da..138918269b3a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
@@ -68,8 +68,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_guard);
 void (*pm_power_off)(void);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_power_off);
 
-void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
-
 /*
  * This is our default idle handler.
  */
@@ -155,10 +153,7 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
 		efi_reboot(reboot_mode, NULL);
 
 	/* Now call the architecture specific reboot code. */
-	if (arm_pm_restart)
-		arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd);
-	else
-		do_kernel_restart(cmd);
+	do_kernel_restart(cmd);
 
 	/*
 	 * Whoops - the architecture was unable to reboot.
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 6/6] ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

All users of arm_pm_restart() have been converted to use the kernel
restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h | 1 -
 arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c           | 6 +-----
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
index a3d61ad984af..6c952538f1e8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
 extern void cpu_init(void);
 
 void soft_restart(unsigned long);
-extern void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
 extern void (*arm_pm_idle)(void);
 
 #define UDBG_UNDEFINED	(1 << 0)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
index 3fa867a2aae6..0207ec69045e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ typedef void (*phys_reset_t)(unsigned long);
 /*
  * Function pointers to optional machine specific functions
  */
-void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
 void (*pm_power_off)(void);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_power_off);
 
@@ -138,10 +137,7 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
 	local_irq_disable();
 	smp_send_stop();
 
-	if (arm_pm_restart)
-		arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd);
-	else
-		do_kernel_restart(cmd);
+	do_kernel_restart(cmd);
 
 	/* Give a grace period for failure to restart of 1s */
 	mdelay(1000);
-- 
2.11.0

[PATCH 6/6] ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

All users of arm_pm_restart() have been converted to use the kernel
restart handler.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h | 1 -
 arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c           | 6 +-----
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
index a3d61ad984af..6c952538f1e8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
 extern void cpu_init(void);
 
 void soft_restart(unsigned long);
-extern void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
 extern void (*arm_pm_idle)(void);
 
 #define UDBG_UNDEFINED	(1 << 0)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
index 3fa867a2aae6..0207ec69045e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ typedef void (*phys_reset_t)(unsigned long);
 /*
  * Function pointers to optional machine specific functions
  */
-void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
 void (*pm_power_off)(void);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_power_off);
 
@@ -138,10 +137,7 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
 	local_irq_disable();
 	smp_send_stop();
 
-	if (arm_pm_restart)
-		arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd);
-	else
-		do_kernel_restart(cmd);
+	do_kernel_restart(cmd);
 
 	/* Give a grace period for failure to restart of 1s */
 	mdelay(1000);
-- 
2.11.0

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> power off.
> 
> Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> 
> Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> 

We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
to get it applied ?

Guenter

> Thanks,
> Thierry
> 
> Guenter Roeck (6):
>   ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler
>   drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
>   ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()
> 
>  arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h   |  1 -
>  arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c             |  6 +-----
>  arch/arm/kernel/setup.c              | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>  arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c          | 11 +++++++++--
>  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c             | 13 +++++++++++--
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h |  2 --
>  arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          |  7 +------
>  drivers/firmware/psci.c              | 11 +++++++++--
>  8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.11.0

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> power off.
> 
> Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> 
> Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> 

We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
to get it applied ?

Guenter

> Thanks,
> Thierry
> 
> Guenter Roeck (6):
>   ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler
>   drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM: Register with kernel restart handler
>   ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
>   ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart()
> 
>  arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h   |  1 -
>  arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c             |  6 +-----
>  arch/arm/kernel/setup.c              | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>  arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c          | 11 +++++++++--
>  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c             | 13 +++++++++++--
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h |  2 --
>  arch/arm64/kernel/process.c          |  7 +------
>  drivers/firmware/psci.c              | 11 +++++++++--
>  8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.11.0

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > power off.
> >
> > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> >
> > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> >
>
> We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> to get it applied ?

Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
the soc tree.

        Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > power off.
> >
> > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> >
> > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> >
>
> We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> to get it applied ?

Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
the soc tree.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
>>> which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
>>> power off.
>>>
>>> Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
>>> merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
>>> it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
>>>
>>> Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
>>> PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
>>> make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
>>> the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
>>> 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
>>> ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
>>>
>>
>> We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
>> to get it applied ?
> 
> Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> the soc tree.
> 

Sure, I'll rebase and do that.

Thanks,
Guenter

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
>>> which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
>>> power off.
>>>
>>> Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
>>> merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
>>> it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
>>>
>>> Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
>>> PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
>>> make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
>>> the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
>>> 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
>>> ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
>>>
>>
>> We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
>> to get it applied ?
> 
> Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> the soc tree.
> 

Sure, I'll rebase and do that.

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > 
> > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > power off.
> > > > 
> > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > 
> > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > to get it applied ?
> > 
> > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > the soc tree.
> > 
> 
> Sure, I'll rebase and do that.

I've uploaded a rebased tree here:

	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset

The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
be useful to you.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > 
> > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > power off.
> > > > 
> > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > 
> > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > to get it applied ?
> > 
> > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > the soc tree.
> > 
> 
> Sure, I'll rebase and do that.

I've uploaded a rebased tree here:

	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset

The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
be useful to you.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > power off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > to get it applied ?
> > > 
> > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > the soc tree.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> 
> I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> 
> 	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> 
> The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> be useful to you.
> 

Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
split it off) since you already did the work ?

Thanks,
Guenter

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > power off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > to get it applied ?
> > > 
> > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > the soc tree.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> 
> I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> 
> 	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> 
> The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> be useful to you.
> 

Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
split it off) since you already did the work ?

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2457 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > 
> > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > the soc tree.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > 
> > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > 
> > 	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > 
> > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > be useful to you.
> > 
> 
> Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> split it off) since you already did the work ?

Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2457 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > 
> > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > the soc tree.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > 
> > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > 
> > 	https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > 
> > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > be useful to you.
> > 
> 
> Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> split it off) since you already did the work ?

Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > > the soc tree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > >
> > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > >
> > >     https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > >
> > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > > be useful to you.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> > split it off) since you already did the work ?

The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently
based on linux-next.

> Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.

Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
in that branch, for the other architectures.

      Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > > the soc tree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > >
> > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > >
> > >     https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > >
> > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > > be useful to you.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> > split it off) since you already did the work ?

The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently
based on linux-next.

> Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.

Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
in that branch, for the other architectures.

      Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3276 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > > > the soc tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > > >
> > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > > >
> > > >     https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > > >
> > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > > > be useful to you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> > > split it off) since you already did the work ?
> 
> The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently
> based on linux-next.

Yeah, I usually do that once -rc1 is out.

> > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.
> 
> Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
> in that branch, for the other architectures.

All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
out again.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3276 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
> > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
> > > > > > > > power off.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
> > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
> > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
> > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
> > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
> > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
> > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
> > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
> > > > > > > to get it applied ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window,
> > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> > > > > > the soc tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that.
> > > >
> > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here:
> > > >
> > > >     https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset
> > > >
> > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a
> > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the
> > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may
> > > > be useful to you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would
> > > split it off) since you already did the work ?
> 
> The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently
> based on linux-next.

Yeah, I usually do that once -rc1 is out.

> > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.
> 
> Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
> in that branch, for the other architectures.

All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
out again.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hi Thierry,

On 16/09/2019 22:28:09+0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.
> > 
> > Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
> > in that branch, for the other architectures.
> 
> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
> yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
> out again.
> 

Could you consider converting the RTC drivers too? The ones used for
poweroff are:

drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1685.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-jz4740.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hi Thierry,

On 16/09/2019 22:28:09+0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.
> > 
> > Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches
> > in that branch, for the other architectures.
> 
> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
> yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
> out again.
> 

Could you consider converting the RTC drivers too? The ones used for
poweroff are:

drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1685.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-jz4740.c
drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
> yet.

Ok, I see.

> If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
> out again.

Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If
we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up,
either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through
the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work.

      Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
> yet.

Ok, I see.

> If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
> out again.

Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If
we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up,
either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through
the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work.

      Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On 9/17/19 12:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
>> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
>> yet.
> 
> Ok, I see.
> 
>> If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
>> out again.
> 
> Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If
> we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up,
> either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through
> the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work.
> 

I'd suggest to keep the two patch sets separate, though, and apply
the 6 system reset patches either way.

Thanks,
Guenter

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

[Guenter Roeck]

On 9/17/19 12:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and
>> power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea
>> yet.
> 
> Ok, I see.
> 
>> If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches
>> out again.
> 
> Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If
> we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up,
> either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through
> the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work.
> 

I'd suggest to keep the two patch sets separate, though, and apply
the 6 system reset patches either way.

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel