Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:09:14 -0500 | From | Josh Cartwright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: use restart_notifier mechanism for ps_hold |
| |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:54:18PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 09/18/2014 03:32 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > >By converting to the restart_notifier mechanism for restart, we allow > >for other mechanisms, like the watchdog, to be used for restart in the > >case where PS_HOLD has failed to reset the chip. > > > >Choose priority 128, as according to documentation, this mechanism "is > >sufficient to restart the entire system". > > > >Cc: Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com> > >Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > >Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright <joshc@codeaurora.org> > >--- [..] > > > >-#ifdef CONFIG_ARM > > Unrelated to this patch, but is this going to be executed (and potentially used) > on any non-arm architectures ?
No. Not for now. The only other conceivable platform that could make use of this would be hexagon, but I think there would be other hurdles to getting this driver working before even tackling the restart handler.
[..] > >+static int msm_ps_hold_restart(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action, > >+ void *data) > > { > >- writel(0, msm_ps_hold); > >+ struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = container_of(nb, struct msm_pinctrl, restart_nb); > >+ > >+ writel(0, pctrl->regs + PS_HOLD_OFFSET); > > mdelay(10000); > > Sure you still want to wait for 10 seconds here ? > Would it make sense to choose a more reasonable timeout ?
Yeah, 10s is a bit extreme. I don't quite know what a reasonable timeout is, so I'll do some rough measurements, and shorten it down in v2.
Thanks again, Josh
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |