On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/13/2016 04:05 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 05:53:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> Register with kernel restart handler instead of setting arm_pm_restart >>> directly. This enables support for replacing the PSCI restart handler >>> with a different handler if necessary for a specific board. >>> >>> Select a priority of 129 to indicate a higher than default priority, but >>> keep it as low as possible since PSCI reset is known to fail on some >>> boards. >> >> For reference, which boards? >> > Salvator-X, reported by Geert Uytterhoeven. Wolfram Sang also reported > that it is broken on a board he is using, but I don't recall if it is > the same board.
Yes it is. >> It's unfortunate that that a PSCI 0.2+ implementation would be lacking a >> working SYSTEM_RESET implementation, and it's certainly a mistake to >> discourage. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> It might make sense to introduce a restart-priority property for >>> devicetree >>> based configurations, but I am not sure if this would be acceptable. >> >>> From the DT side, I'm not keen on properties for priorities. They're >> incredibly fragile and don't really encode a HW property. >> > Depends. It is a convenient means to say "primary restart method" or > "may be broken". The issue is supposed to be fixed in a more recent firmware, which I still have to try. DT indeed isn't the right place to work around this. What we need is a blacklist of bad firmware versions... Or Perfect Firmware from Day One on (like Perfect DT from Day One ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
