From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755218AbcDNNVH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:21:07 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:40495 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753672AbcDNNVE (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:21:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler To: Wolfram Sang 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> <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <570F9942.30608@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:21:06 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:21:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler In-Reply-To: <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> <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> Message-ID: <570F9942.30608@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. >