From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: pwrseq: Use highest priority for eMMC restart handler Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:53:01 +0200 Message-ID: <5629227D.6060806@osg.samsung.com> References: <1445440540-21525-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <56282F71.2070408@samsung.com> <562839F7.3040005@osg.samsung.com> <56283F27.9060804@samsung.com> <562909DE.1000202@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:46786 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752982AbbJVRxM (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:53:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Markus Reichl , Anand Moon , linux-samsung-soc , Alim Akhtar , Marek Szyprowski , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot , Ulf Hansson , =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=c3=bcbner?= Hello Doug, On 10/22/2015 07:33 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas [snip] >> >> Do you know why the priority 200 was chosen for veyron gpi-restart ooi? > > In David Riley's original patch the example had 200: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4784611/ > > In the ChromeOS 3.14 kernel tree I believe we're still using the old > patch (we still have /bits/ 8). ...it looks like I'm the one who > originally added it to the veyron dts file and I set it to 200, so I'd > presume that I just copied the example and called it "good enough". > I see, thanks for the explanation. I asked because I noticed that the gpio-restart handler default priority was 129 and I didn't find other restart handler used for this board with a prio > 129 so at least in mainline, the priority 200 should not be necessary. But now I see that it was indeed 128 but was bumped to 129 in commit: bcd56fe1aa97 ("power: reset: gpio-restart: increase priority slightly") which explains why the priority 200 was in the veyron DTS even when is not needed anymore after that commit. > I'm sure the upstream dts just used the number from the ChromeOS 3.14 tree... > > Note that the GPIO-restart definitely need to be higher priorities > than others in the system. The two I know of off the top of my head > are the "dw watchdog" and the one in the CRU. The "dw watchdog" has a > priority of 128 and so does the one in "rockchip/clk.c". Hrm, > actually, the Rockchip-specific one should probably have its priority > bumped up since it seems better not to just randomly pick between > these two... Agreed about bumping the prio for the rockchip specific restart handler. > > > -Doug > -- Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America