[query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Premi, Sanjeev]

Hi,

While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning for omap3evm - with omap3630:

Power Management for TI OMAP3.
sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
SmartReflex Class3 initialized

In the code, i see this comment:
 /*
  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
  */
 if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
 else
  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);

But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.

premi # grep register_pmic *.c
omap_twl.c:     omap_voltage_register_pmic(voltdm, &omap4_mpu_volt_info);
omap_twl.c:     omap_voltage_register_pmic(voltdm, &omap4_iva_volt_info);
omap_twl.c:     omap_voltage_register_pmic(voltdm, &omap4_core_volt_info);
omap_twl.c:     omap_voltage_register_pmic(voltdm, &omap3_mpu_volt_info);
omap_twl.c:     omap_voltage_register_pmic(voltdm, &omap3_core_volt_info);
smartreflex.c: * omap_sr_register_pmic() - API to register pmic specific info.
smartreflex.c:void omap_sr_register_pmic(struct omap_sr_pmic_data *pmic_data)
voltage.c: * omap_voltage_register_pmic() - API to register PMIC specific data
voltage.c:int omap_voltage_register_pmic(struct voltagedomain *voltdm,

Where can I look for an example of registration?

~sanjeev

Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Menon, Nishanth]

Sanjeev,

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
> While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning for omap3evm - with omap3630:
>
> Power Management for TI OMAP3.
> sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
> smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
> smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
> SmartReflex Class3 initialized
>
> In the code, i see this comment:
>  /*
>  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
>  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
>  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
>  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
>  */
>  if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
>  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
>  else
>  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
>
> But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.

This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the pr_warning).
 the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data - it just has
a single api for pmic_init

e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]

if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the system can do
voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.

in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
remove from the code.

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129584746102725&w=2
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Gulati, Shweta]

Sanjeev,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Menon, Nishanth <nm@ti.com> wrote:
> Sanjeev,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
>> While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning for omap3evm - with omap3630:
>>
>> Power Management for TI OMAP3.
>> sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
>> smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
>> smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver initialized
>> SmartReflex Class3 initialized
>>
>> In the code, i see this comment:
>>  /*
>>  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
>>  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
>>  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
>>  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
>>  */
>>  if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
>>  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
>>  else
>>  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
>>
>> But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.
>
> This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the pr_warning).
>  the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
> populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
> Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data - it just has
> a single api for pmic_init
>
> e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
> switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]
>
> if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
> have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the system can do
> voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
> block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
> sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.
>
> in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
> remove from the code.
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129584746102725&w=2
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
I have tested on OMAP4 board also, Smart reflex works fine. It brings
down the nominal voltages to
optimum levels, the registration done by generic Pmic  framework to SR
wouldn't hamper SR woking
as the SR bit setting is done specifically in Triton specific file
'omap_twl.c' and thus, that warning is harmless.
The patch you should take for SR to work is:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/510971/
-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Shweta
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Vishwanath Sripathy]

Nishant,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:06 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
>
> Sanjeev,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
> > While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning for omap3evm -
> with omap3630:
> >
> > Power Management for TI OMAP3.
> > sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
> > smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
> initialized
> > smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
> initialized
> > SmartReflex Class3 initialized
> >
> > In the code, i see this comment:
> >  /*
> >  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
> >  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
> >  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
> >  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
> >  */
> >  if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
> >  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
> >  else
> >  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
> >
> > But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.
>
> This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the pr_warning).
>  the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
> populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
> Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data - it just has
> a single api for pmic_init
>
> e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
> switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]
>
> if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
> have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the system can do
> voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
> block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
> sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.
>
> in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
> remove from the code.
As you mentioned, incase of TWL4030/5030, we do not need any hook. However
if some other PMIC is used that genuinely needs this hook, then shouldn't
SR throw up this warning? As SR module is independent of PMIC, it cannot
distinguish them. So I feel this warning should be present probably
reworded better like "No PMIC hook registered to init smartreflex. Either
this PM IC does not need SR init or PMIC hook is missing".

Vishwa
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129584746102725&w=2
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Nishanth Menon]

Vishwanath Sripathy wrote, on 01/27/2011 07:55 PM:
> Nishant,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:06 PM
>> To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
>>
>> Sanjeev,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev<premi@ti.com>  wrote:
>>> While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning for omap3evm -
>> with omap3630:
>>>
>>> Power Management for TI OMAP3.
>>> sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex<-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
>>> smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
>> initialized
>>> smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
>> initialized
>>> SmartReflex Class3 initialized
>>>
>>> In the code, i see this comment:
>>>   /*
>>>   * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
>>>   * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
>>>   * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
>>>   * handler. Warn for the second condition.
>>>   */
>>>   if (sr_pmic_data&&  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
>>>   sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
>>>   else
>>>   pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
>>>
>>> But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.
>>
>> This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the pr_warning).
>>   the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
>> populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
>> Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data - it just has
>> a single api for pmic_init
>>
>> e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
>> switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]
>>
>> if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
>> have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the system can do
>> voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
>> block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
>> sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.
>>
>> in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
>> remove from the code.
> As you mentioned, incase of TWL4030/5030, we do not need any hook. However
> if some other PMIC is used that genuinely needs this hook, then shouldn't
> SR throw up this warning? As SR module is independent of PMIC, it cannot
> distinguish them. So I feel this warning should be present probably
> reworded better like "No PMIC hook registered to init smartreflex. Either
> this PM IC does not need SR init or PMIC hook is missing".

Fair enough - but how do we know if the warning spawns off question such 
as this thread? aka false alarm? if a platform does need initialization 
it should be up to the platform porting person rt?

Just that I dont think it makes sense to false flag folks considering 
that the API is optional.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

RE: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Premi, Sanjeev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vishwanath Sripathy [mailto:vishwanath.bs@ti.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:56 PM
> To: Menon, Nishanth; Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
> 
> Nishant,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:06 PM
> > To: Premi, Sanjeev
> > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
> >
> > Sanjeev,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
> > > While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning 
> for omap3evm -
> > with omap3630:
> > >
> > > Power Management for TI OMAP3.
> > > sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
> > > smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
> > initialized
> > > smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
> > initialized
> > > SmartReflex Class3 initialized
> > >
> > > In the code, i see this comment:
> > >  /*
> > >  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
> > >  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
> > >  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
> > >  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
> > >  */
> > >  if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
> > >  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
> > >  else
> > >  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
> > >
> > > But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.
> >
> > This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the 
> pr_warning).
> >  the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
> > populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
> > Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data - 
> it just has
> > a single api for pmic_init
> >
> > e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
> > switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]
> >
> > if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
> > have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the 
> system can do
> > voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
> > block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
> > sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.
> >
> > in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
> > remove from the code.
> As you mentioned, incase of TWL4030/5030, we do not need any 
> hook. However
> if some other PMIC is used that genuinely needs this hook, 
> then shouldn't
> SR throw up this warning? As SR module is independent of 
> PMIC, it cannot


I possibly see different arguments from your description:
1) This is hook is not needed for TWL4030/5030.
   But still, still hook is needed for another PMIC.

2) It is okay to warn user for non-existent hook that is not
   really needed... in hope that there could be a different PMIC.

3) Despite saying that SR is independent of PMIC, we assume it as
   default and don't go thru the "plugin" route.

Something seems to be missing in the argument. I haven't been able
to spend more time on this since last mail (also reason for late
response); but:

1) When user adds the hook - for different PMIC, this warning/info
   would go away. But not for current default systems.

2) By keeping TWL4030 as default, we are possibly not telling the
   person keen on replacing the PMIC what should be done?

If SR is really PMIC independent, then warning is right only if
TWL4030 is also 'plugged-in' as any other PMIC is expected to be.

> distinguish them. So I feel this warning should be present probably
> reworded better like "No PMIC hook registered to init 
> smartreflex. Either
> this PM IC does not need SR init or PMIC hook is missing".

This wording - as is - would again be misleading.

~sanjeev

> Vishwa
> >
> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129584746102725&w=2
> > Regards,
> > Nishanth Menon
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-omap" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex

[Gulati, Shweta]

Sanjeev,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vishwanath Sripathy [mailto:vishwanath.bs@ti.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:56 PM
>> To: Menon, Nishanth; Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: RE: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
>>
>> Nishant,
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
>> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:06 PM
>> > To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>> > Subject: Re: [query] smartreflex: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex
>> >
>> > Sanjeev,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 20:55, Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> wrote:
>> > > While building the kernel at 2.6.37, i see this warning
>> for omap3evm -
>> > with omap3630:
>> > >
>> > > Power Management for TI OMAP3.
>> > > sr_init: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex <-- THIS IS THE WARNING.
>> > > smartreflex smartreflex.0: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
>> > initialized
>> > > smartreflex smartreflex.1: omap_sr_probe: SmartReflex driver
>> > initialized
>> > > SmartReflex Class3 initialized
>> > >
>> > > In the code, i see this comment:
>> > >  /*
>> > >  * sr_init is a late init. If by then a pmic specific API is not
>> > >  * registered either there is no need for anything to be done on
>> > >  * the PMIC side or somebody has forgotten to register a PMIC
>> > >  * handler. Warn for the second condition.
>> > >  */
>> > >  if (sr_pmic_data && sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init)
>> > >  sr_pmic_data->sr_pmic_init();
>> > >  else
>> > >  pr_warning("%s: No PMIC hook to init smartreflex\n", __func__);
>> > >
>> > > But, I couldn't find any place where PMIC is being registered.
>> >
>> > This is a harmless warning (ideally, we should remove the
>> pr_warning).
>> >  the intent here is to have hook for pmic_init which could be
>> > populated for custom PMICs which may need "something additional" for
>> > Smart reflex enablement. if you look at the sr_pmic_data -
>> it just has
>> > a single api for pmic_init
>> >
>> > e.g. in the case of TWL4030/5030, we might need to set the bit to
>> > switch mode from I2C1 to I2C_SR - e.g. the patch from Shweta[1]
>> >
>> > if Smartreflex AVS was the *only* mechanism in the system, we could
>> > have hooked pmic_init to this bit setting. but since the
>> system can do
>> > voltage scaling (VP forceupdate/vc bypass) independent of SR AVS
>> > block, the patch in [1] does initialization independent of
>> > sr_pmic_data->pmic_init which makes sense.
>> >
>> > in short, my 2cents: the warning is probably something we should
>> > remove from the code.
>> As you mentioned, incase of TWL4030/5030, we do not need any
>> hook. However
>> if some other PMIC is used that genuinely needs this hook,
>> then shouldn't
>> SR throw up this warning? As SR module is independent of
>> PMIC, it cannot
>
>
> I possibly see different arguments from your description:
> 1) This is hook is not needed for TWL4030/5030.
>   But still, still hook is needed for another PMIC.
 True.
struct  'sr_pmic_data' is generic way of handling all Pmic.
The pmic needs to register to SR which it does  by API 'sr_pmic_init'.
Today this API just enables SR bit "CFG_ENABLE_SRFLX" in TWL
PM module registers which is redundant in case of TWL chips as SR bit
is already set in 'omap_twl_init' API in file omap_twl.c
But in future if this API 'sr_pmic_init' has some other functionality or
in case when Pmic is not TWL family chip then the initialization done by
'sr_pmic_init' is necessary.
> 2) It is okay to warn user for non-existent hook that is not
>   really needed... in hope that there could be a different PMIC.
>
> 3) Despite saying that SR is independent of PMIC, we assume it as
>   default and don't go thru the "plugin" route.
>
> Something seems to be missing in the argument. I haven't been able
> to spend more time on this since last mail (also reason for late
> response); but:
>
> 1) When user adds the hook - for different PMIC, this warning/info
>   would go away. But not for current default systems.
If some other PMIC is registered then ideally this warning shouldn't come
and if it comes it hampers SR role but for TWL4030/TWL5030 this warning
is harmless.
> 2) By keeping TWL4030 as default, we are possibly not telling the
>   person keen on replacing the PMIC what should be done?
>
> If SR is really PMIC independent, then warning is right only if
> TWL4030 is also 'plugged-in' as any other PMIC is expected to be.
>
>> distinguish them. So I feel this warning should be present probably
>> reworded better like "No PMIC hook registered to init
>> smartreflex. Either
>> this PM IC does not need SR init or PMIC hook is missing".
>
> This wording - as is - would again be misleading.
>
> ~sanjeev
>
>> Vishwa
>> >
>> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129584746102725&w=2
>> > Regards,
>> > Nishanth Menon
>> > --
>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-omap" in
>> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Shweta
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html