From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760794AbcDMNWu (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:22:50 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f193.google.com ([209.85.223.193]:34554 "EHLO mail-io0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760473AbcDMNWq (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:22:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570E4550.5000207@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> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:22:44 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q9xObJ4qoLcSOwPpkiQTZkkYLBM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Mark Rutland , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Wolfram Sang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/13/2016 04:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 05:53:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> For reference, which boards? >> > Salvator-X, reported by Geert Uytterhoeven. Wolfram Sang also reported > that it is broken on a board he is using, but I don't recall if it is > the same board. Yes it is. >> It's unfortunate that that a PSCI 0.2+ implementation would be lacking a >> working SYSTEM_RESET implementation, and it's certainly a mistake to >> discourage. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >>> --- >>> It might make sense to introduce a restart-priority property for >>> devicetree >>> based configurations, but I am not sure if this would be acceptable. >> >>> From the DT side, I'm not keen on properties for priorities. They're >> incredibly fragile and don't really encode a HW property. >> > Depends. It is a convenient means to say "primary restart method" or > "may be broken". The issue is supposed to be fixed in a more recent firmware, which I still have to try. DT indeed isn't the right place to work around this. What we need is a blacklist of bad firmware versions... Or Perfect Firmware from Day One on (like Perfect DT from Day One ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: geert@linux-m68k.org (Geert Uytterhoeven) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:22:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler In-Reply-To: <570E4550.5000207@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> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/13/2016 04:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 05:53:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> For reference, which boards? >> > Salvator-X, reported by Geert Uytterhoeven. Wolfram Sang also reported > that it is broken on a board he is using, but I don't recall if it is > the same board. Yes it is. >> It's unfortunate that that a PSCI 0.2+ implementation would be lacking a >> working SYSTEM_RESET implementation, and it's certainly a mistake to >> discourage. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >>> --- >>> It might make sense to introduce a restart-priority property for >>> devicetree >>> based configurations, but I am not sure if this would be acceptable. >> >>> From the DT side, I'm not keen on properties for priorities. They're >> incredibly fragile and don't really encode a HW property. >> > Depends. It is a convenient means to say "primary restart method" or > "may be broken". The issue is supposed to be fixed in a more recent firmware, which I still have to try. DT indeed isn't the right place to work around this. What we need is a blacklist of bad firmware versions... Or Perfect Firmware from Day One on (like Perfect DT from Day One ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds