On 20.11.2015 03:06, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof/Ulf/Kukjin
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 22.10.2015 00:01, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>>> <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hello Alim,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2015 04:50 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]:
>>>>>> From c9b250ee03bae338339b70693e906145c719f783 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>> From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:59:44 +0200
>>>>>> Subject: [RFT PATCH] mmc: pwrseq: Use highest priority for eMMC restart
>>>>>> handler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pwrseq_emmc driver does a eMMC card reset before a system reboot to
>>>>>> allow broken or limited ROM boot-loaders, that don't have an eMMC reset
>>>>>> logic, to be able to read the second stage from the eMMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this has to be called before a system reboot handler and while most
>>>>>> of them use the priority 128, there are other restart handlers (such as
>>>>>> the syscon-reboot one) that use a higher priority. So, use the highest
>>>>>> priority to make sure that the eMMC hw is reset before a system reboot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Looks good.
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> +Cc Ulf,
>>
>> Javier,
>>
>> First of all, thanks Javier for digging into the issue. Actually I have
>> Odroid U3 but because of user-space limitations (which I need for other
>> work) I cannot test all of mainline patches there.
>>
>>
>>>> Thanks, should I post it as a proper patch or are adding it to your
>>>> series?
>>> Suggest you to post as a patch collecting {Tested, Reviewed}-by (easy
>>> for maintainers to pickup ) and probably CCing Ulf for his feedback.
>>>
>>>> I think the latter is more reasonable so with an ack from Ulf,
>>>> all patches can go through the linux-samsung tree.
>>>>
>>> yes, that is reasonable, as I said, let Krzysztof and Ulf take a call here.
>>
>> Javier, Alim, Ulf,
>>
>> I am not grabbing any more patches for v4.4 because I doubt that they
>> could be merged to arm-soc for this cycle. My last pull requests for
>> v4.4 is still pending...
>>
>> This means that I plan to pick up these series for v4.5, after closing
>> v4.4 merge window (unless Kukjin picks it also). Because of that, we
>> have plenty of time, so my idea is:
>> 1. Wait for some comments from Ulf on Javier's fix.
>> 2. If the fix goes into v4.4, then problem solved.
>> 3. If not and it get acked, then it can go with this set.
>> 4. If not and it get applied by Ulf for v4.5, then a tag from him would
>> be a nice way to solve dependency.
>>
>> Either way we don't have to hurry, I think.
>>
>
> Is It the right time to get this series in?
> Thanks!!
I started applying it but stopped at #5. It should be squashed with #6
to get rid of (not important) conflict between syscon reboot and
existing Exynos restart handler:
syscon-poweroff syscon-poweroff: pm_power_off already claimed c001e52c
exynos_power_off
syscon-poweroff: probe of syscon-poweroff failed with error -16
The conflict is not really an issue because of ordering of init calls
the Exynos will register itself before syscon. Nevertheless splitting
the patches does not really make sense... so please merge #5 with #6.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
