From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
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 06:21:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <570F9942.30608@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana>
On 04/14/2016 01:52 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> 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
Sure.
> findings/conclusions so far:
>
> * There is one driver bringing 'priority' directly to DT already: gpio-restart
>
Correct.
> * Watchdog priorities are board dependant
>
> * Having the priorities clear at boot-time is safer than configuring them
> at run-time
>
Correct.
> * 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.
>
"the higher, the more important" makes sense to me. We don't have to
enforce the linux scheme, though that happens to be the same (the priority
argument in the notifier block takes an int, so it would not even be
necessary to adjust it unless someone specifies 0xffffffff).
> Opinions?
>
I am fine either way - boolean properties or numbers, with a personal
preference for numbers as more flexible. Whatever is acceptable for
the community is fine with me.
Guenter
>> - I do not see the point holding up the series for this, and it is
>> really a separate problem.
>
> Ack.
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:21:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <570F9942.30608@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana>
On 04/14/2016 01:52 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> 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
Sure.
> findings/conclusions so far:
>
> * There is one driver bringing 'priority' directly to DT already: gpio-restart
>
Correct.
> * Watchdog priorities are board dependant
>
> * Having the priorities clear at boot-time is safer than configuring them
> at run-time
>
Correct.
> * 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.
>
"the higher, the more important" makes sense to me. We don't have to
enforce the linux scheme, though that happens to be the same (the priority
argument in the notifier block takes an int, so it would not even be
necessary to adjust it unless someone specifies 0xffffffff).
> Opinions?
>
I am fine either way - boolean properties or numbers, with a personal
preference for numbers as more flexible. Whatever is acceptable for
the community is fine with me.
Guenter
>> - I do not see the point holding up the series for this, and it is
>> really a separate problem.
>
> Ack.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-14 13:21 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
2016-04-14 8:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-04-14 13:21 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
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=570F9942.30608@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--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=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/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.