Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On 9/17/19 12:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding wrote: All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea yet. Ok, I see. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches out again. Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up, either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work. I'd suggest to keep the two patch sets separate, though, and apply the 6 system reset patches either way. Thanks, Guenter
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:28 PM Thierry Reding wrote: > > All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and > power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea > yet. Ok, I see. > If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches > out again. Maybe do that after we pull the first set into arm-soc then. If we can reach consensus, I can merge them as a follow-up, either through the soc tree as a new subsystem or through the asm-generic tree as cross-architecture work. Arnd
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
Hi Thierry, On 16/09/2019 22:28:09+0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1. > > > > Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches > > in that branch, for the other architectures. > > All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and > power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea > yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches > out again. > Could you consider converting the RTC drivers too? The ones used for poweroff are: drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1685.c drivers/rtc/rtc-jz4740.c drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm > > > > > > > > working on > > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system > > > > > > > > restart and > > > > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never > > > > > > > > got > > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for > > > > > > > > restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as > > > > > > > > well as > > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think > > > > > > > > it might > > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to > > > > > > > > simplify > > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take > > > > > > > > patches > > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 > > > > > > > > through the > > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge > > > > > > window, > > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > > > > > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > > > > > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > > > > be useful to you. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would > > > split it off) since you already did the work ? > > The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently > based on linux-next. Yeah, I usually do that once -rc1 is out. > > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1. > > Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches > in that branch, for the other architectures. All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches out again. Thierry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm > > > > > > > working on > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for > > > > > > > restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as > > > > > > > well as > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to > > > > > > > simplify > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take > > > > > > > patches > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it > > > > > > take > > > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > > > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > > > > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > > > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > > > be useful to you. > > > > > > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would > > split it off) since you already did the work ? The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently based on linux-next. > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1. Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches in that branch, for the other architectures. Arnd
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working > > > > > > on > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart > > > > > > and > > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel > > > > > > because > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for > > > > > > restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well > > > > > > as > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it > > > > > > might > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to > > > > > > simplify > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take > > > > > > patches > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through > > > > > > the > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take > > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > > be useful to you. > > > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would > split it off) since you already did the work ? Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1. Thierry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for > > > > > restart. > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > be useful to you. > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would split it off) since you already did the work ? Thanks, Guenter
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take > > > to get it applied ? > > > > Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > the soc tree. > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. I've uploaded a rebased tree here: https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may be useful to you. Thierry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: From: Thierry Reding Hi everyone, This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and power off. Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take to get it applied ? Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through the soc tree. Sure, I'll rebase and do that. Thanks, Guenter
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > From: Thierry Reding > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and > > power off. > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take > to get it applied ? Can you send a pull request to s...@kernel.org after the merge window, with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through the soc tree. Arnd
Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > From: Thierry Reding > > Hi everyone, > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and > power off. > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take to get it applied ? Guenter > Thanks, > Thierry > > Guenter Roeck (6): > ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler > ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler > drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler > ARM: Register with kernel restart handler > ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart() > ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart() > > arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h | 1 - > arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c | 6 +- > arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 20 ++-- > arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c | 11 +-- > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 13 +++-- > arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h | 2 -- > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +-- > drivers/firmware/psci.c | 11 +-- > 8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.11.0
[PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()
From: Thierry Reding Hi everyone, This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and power off. Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. Thanks, Thierry Guenter Roeck (6): ARM: prima2: Register with kernel restart handler ARM: xen: Register with kernel restart handler drivers: firmware: psci: Register with kernel restart handler ARM: Register with kernel restart handler ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart() ARM: Remove arm_pm_restart() arch/arm/include/asm/system_misc.h | 1 - arch/arm/kernel/reboot.c | 6 +- arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 20 ++-- arch/arm/mach-prima2/rstc.c | 11 +-- arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 13 +++-- arch/arm64/include/asm/system_misc.h | 2 -- arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 +-- drivers/firmware/psci.c | 11 +-- 8 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) -- 2.11.0
