From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] power: reset: read priority from device tree Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:50:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3594295.ivTLMMcK6I@wuerfel> References: <1417453389-1588-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20141201174100.GC22708@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141201174100.GC22708@leverpostej> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: "fkan@apm.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "dbaryshkov@gmail.com" , "sre@kernel.org" , Stefan Agner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "shawn.guo@linaro.org" , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "linux@roeck-us.net" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Monday 01 December 2014 17:41:00 Mark Rutland wrote: > Otherwise, I would imagine that most systems have a single preferred > mechanism with some possible fallback(s), for which a single > preferred-poweroff property might suffice, and has better interaction > w.r.t. priority (in that it should _always_ be tried first). Even that's > difficult to reconcile with FW bindings though, especially EFI (which we > sometimes must use in preference for variable storage and capsule > updates). The preferred-poweroff property sounds better to me, too. I can see two ways of doing that though, and I'm not sure which one you mean. Would you put that as a bool property into the device that does the reboot, or would you put it as reference into the /chosen or /aliases node? I think the latter would be better as it avoids any ambiguity, but either way would work. Arnd