From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Cartwright Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] power: reset: use restart_notifier mechanism for msm-poweroff Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:55:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20140923175556.GG868@joshc.qualcomm.com> References: <1411452520-29589-1-git-send-email-pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com> <542112FD.7080302@smartplayin.com> <2C40727B-BF1E-46AC-9189-6B35E358220E@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2C40727B-BF1E-46AC-9189-6B35E358220E@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala Cc: Pramod Gurav , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , Josh Cartwright , Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 1:28 AM, Pramod Gurav wrote: > > > +linux-arm-msm > > On Tuesday 23 September 2014 11:38 AM, Pramod Gurav wrote: > >> This change replaces use of arm_pm_restart with recently introduced > >> reset mechanism in Linux kernel called restart_notifier. > > Can you update the commit message to include details about the priority level we are setting it to. > > Probably something like Josh had: > > Choose priority 128, as according to documentation, this mechanism "is > sufficient to restart the entire system?. > > Hmm, what happens if we have ps_hold restart and msm-poweroff enabled. > Which one should have priority? I would hope we would avoid a situation where both this driver is probed, and the pinctrl-msm driver has registered a restart handler? That is, we wouldn't ever mix the pinctrl-msm ps_hold mechanism (for MSM8660/MSM8960/APQ8064, etc) and msm-poweroff (APQ8074 and later). Is this a case you're worried about? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation