Hello Doug, On 10/22/2015 07:33 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
[snip] >> >> Do you know why the priority 200 was chosen for veyron gpi-restart ooi? > > In David Riley's original patch the example had 200: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4784611/ > > In the ChromeOS 3.14 kernel tree I believe we're still using the old > patch (we still have /bits/ 8). ...it looks like I'm the one who > originally added it to the veyron dts file and I set it to 200, so I'd > presume that I just copied the example and called it "good enough". > I see, thanks for the explanation. I asked because I noticed that the gpio-restart handler default priority was 129 and I didn't find other restart handler used for this board with a prio > 129 so at least in mainline, the priority 200 should not be necessary. But now I see that it was indeed 128 but was bumped to 129 in commit: bcd56fe1aa97 ("power: reset: gpio-restart: increase priority slightly") which explains why the priority 200 was in the veyron DTS even when is not needed anymore after that commit. > I'm sure the upstream dts just used the number from the ChromeOS 3.14 tree... > > Note that the GPIO-restart definitely need to be higher priorities > than others in the system. The two I know of off the top of my head > are the "dw watchdog" and the one in the CRU. The "dw watchdog" has a > priority of 128 and so does the one in "rockchip/clk.c". Hrm, > actually, the Rockchip-specific one should probably have its priority > bumped up since it seems better not to just randomly pick between > these two... Agreed about bumping the prio for the rockchip specific restart handler. > > > -Doug > -- Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
