On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:02:19PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Elliot Berman (2024-10-23 09:30:21)
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:42:46PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Elliot Berman (2024-10-18 12:39:48)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > index 2328ca58bba6..60bc285622ce 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > @@ -305,9 +315,29 @@ static int get_set_conduit_method(const struct device_node *np)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void psci_vendor_sys_reset2(unsigned long action, void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const char *cmd = data;
> > > > + unsigned long ret;
> > > > + size_t i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < num_psci_reset_params; i++) {
> > > > + if (!strcmp(psci_reset_params[i].mode, cmd)) {
> > > > + ret = invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_FN_NATIVE(1_1, SYSTEM_RESET2),
> > > > + psci_reset_params[i].reset_type,
> > > > + psci_reset_params[i].cookie, 0);
> > > > + pr_err("failed to perform reset \"%s\": %ld\n",
> > > > + cmd, (long)ret);
> > >
> > > Do this intentionally return? Should it be some other function that's
> > > __noreturn instead and a while (1) if the firmware returns back to the
> > > kernel?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I think it's best to make sure we fall back to the architectural
> > reset (whether it's the SYSTEM_RESET or architectural SYSTEM_RESET2)
> > since device would reboot then.
>
> Ok. Please add a comment in the code so we know that it's intentional.
>
> >
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int psci_sys_reset(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
> > > > void *data)
> > > > {
> > > > + if (data && num_psci_reset_params)
> > > > + psci_vendor_sys_reset2(action, data);
> > > > +
>
> I'd add a comment here as well indicating that a fallback is used.
>
Ack.
Thanks for the feedback!
- Elliot
