From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:52:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: PSCI: Register with kernel restart handler In-Reply-To: <20160414004223.GA18564@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> <20160414004223.GA18564@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: <20160414085242.GB1533@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > 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 findings/conclusions so far: * There is one driver bringing 'priority' directly to DT already: gpio-restart * Watchdog priorities are board dependant * Having the priorities clear at boot-time is safer than configuring them at run-time * 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. Opinions? > - I do not see the point holding up the series for this, and it is > really a separate problem. Ack. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: