From: Tobias Schramm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Peter Geis <email@example.com>, Robin Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Anand Moon <email@example.com>,
Rob Herring <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Mark Rutland <email@example.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jagan Teki <email@example.com>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Daniel Schultz <email@example.com>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
Subject: Re: [RFCv1 0/8] RK3399 clean shutdown issue
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:51:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:29 AM Robin Murphy <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2019 6:45 pm, Anand Moon wrote:
>>> Most of the RK3399 SBC boards do not perform clean
>>> shutdown and clean reboot.
>> FWIW reboot problems on RK3399 have been tracked down to issues in
>> upstream ATF, and are unrelated to the PMIC.
>>> These patches try to help resolve the issue with proper
>>> shutdown by turning off the PMIC.
>> As mentioned elsewhere, although this is what the BSP kernel seems to
>> do, and in practice it's unlikely to matter for the majority of devboard
>> users like you and me, I still feel a bit uncomfortable with this
>> solution for systems using ATF as in principle the secure world might
>> want to know about orderly shutdowns, and this effectively makes every
>> shutdown an unexpected power loss from secure software's point of view.
> Since ATF is operating completely in volatile memory, and shouldn't be
> touching hardware once it passes off control to the kernel anyways,
> what is the harm of pulling the rug out from under it?
> If this idea is to prevent issues in the future, such as if ATF does
> gain the ability to preempt hardware control, then at that time ATF
> will need to be able to handle actually powering off devices using the
> same functionality.
As far as I know ATF implements PSCI, doesn't it? Thus I would assume
that it should most definitely handle power off for all platforms as
indicated by the presence of platform handlers in .
> But as we discussed previously, ATF doesn't have this capability, so
> in this case any board without a dedicated power-off gpio will be
> unable to power off at all.
> Also it seems that giving ATF this functionality, with the current
> state of ATF, would be cost prohibitive.
> I personally feel that allowing the kernel to do this is a solution to
> the problem we have now.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'd suggest that implementing an
i2c driver in the rockchip platform part of ATF using libfdt to find the
PMIC from the devicetree would be the way to go.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-09 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-06 18:45 [RFCv1 0/8] RK3399 clean shutdown issue Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 1/8] mfd: rk808: Refactor shutdown functions Anand Moon
2019-12-16 11:11 ` Lee Jones
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 2/8] mfd: rk808: use syscore for RK805 PMIC shutdown Anand Moon
2019-12-09 13:34 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-09 15:38 ` Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 3/8] mfd: rk808: use syscore for RK808 " Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 4/8] mfd: rk808: use syscore for RK818 " Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 5/8] mfd: rk808: cleanup unused function pointer Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 6/8] mfd: rk808: use common syscore for all PMCI for clean shutdown Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 7/8] arm64: rockchip: drop unused field from rk8xx i2c node Anand Moon
2019-12-06 18:45 ` [RFCv1 8/8] arm: " Anand Moon
2019-12-06 22:32 ` [RFCv1 0/8] RK3399 clean shutdown issue Heiko Stuebner
2019-12-07 5:07 ` Anand Moon
2019-12-07 11:45 ` Heiko Stuebner
2019-12-09 13:29 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-09 13:37 ` Peter Geis
2019-12-09 13:53 ` Heiko Stübner
2019-12-09 13:58 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-09 14:51 ` Tobias Schramm [this message]
2019-12-09 14:56 ` Anand Moon
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).