From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753208AbbCKPmT (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:42:19 -0400 Received: from skprod3.natinst.com ([130.164.80.24]:34666 "EHLO ni.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbbCKPmP (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:42:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:41:50 -0500 From: Josh Cartwright To: Michal Simek , S?ren Brinkmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: zynq: use restart_handler mechanism for slcr reset Message-ID: <20150311154150.GA3851@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> References: <1425049769-24929-1-git-send-email-joshc@ni.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1425049769-24929-1-git-send-email-joshc@ni.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on US-AUS-MGWOut2/AUS/H/NIC(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 03/11/2015 10:41:51 AM, Serialize by Router on US-AUS-MGWOut2/AUS/H/NIC(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 03/11/2015 10:41:51 AM, Serialize complete at 03/11/2015 10:41:51 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2015-03-11_04:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:09:29AM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote: > By making use of the restart_handler chain mechanism, the SLCR-based > reset mechanism can be prioritized amongst other mechanisms available on > a particular board. Have either of you had a chance to look at this yet? On our boards we have a chip external to the SoC that manages power sequencing (and a hodgepodge of other board-level things), and we would like it to be prioritized above the SLCR reset mechanism. Previously we've just hacked up mach-zynq/common.c to not register a restart handler, and set arm_pm_restart ourselves, but that doesn't seem appropriate now that the restart chain exists. Thanks, Josh