Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932165AbaLASvp (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:51:45 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:55892 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752771AbaLASvo (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:51:44 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Mark Rutland Cc: Stefan Agner , "shawn.guo@linaro.org" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "linux@roeck-us.net" , "sre@kernel.org" , "fkan@apm.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "dbaryshkov@gmail.com" , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] power: reset: read priority from device tree Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:50:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3594295.ivTLMMcK6I@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20141201174100.GC22708@leverpostej> References: <1417453389-1588-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <20141201174100.GC22708@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:me9OByuvrgEdVjfq92Y3NCVfH/LUa13QjkXLjQvYo6R B2z7vzCkpuKAbQWBgDgSMQ2MQR0KiqaWFMK1olwtqbmboDNPfR HIeY+8A+wfOBGWiUk8TnAk2A15pJZWjrIcVzcEouaLuiFUHXlG LrwhepP0kZNlWbZNOo/3DzNwRln8MIf2gMAlcFG7ARw35N+5fA 1aPG/si9ifDmZ3DZab3M2YhGdegTQ90yjv2+peHuThC4inP8Ql LQMGe55zG827MEoVvsUWVKAIoucak8P4zhBI5pRUydzFBfvP/5 ePsRhFmXsi5dLMu1c8XMbGLbIxiav+dHmJ4l1lHX4+pGHw2LfV Q2KCNcEx9lzze00FIdmI= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 01 December 2014 17:41:00 Mark Rutland wrote: > Otherwise, I would imagine that most systems have a single preferred > mechanism with some possible fallback(s), for which a single > preferred-poweroff property might suffice, and has better interaction > w.r.t. priority (in that it should _always_ be tried first). Even that's > difficult to reconcile with FW bindings though, especially EFI (which we > sometimes must use in preference for variable storage and capsule > updates). The preferred-poweroff property sounds better to me, too. I can see two ways of doing that though, and I'm not sure which one you mean. Would you put that as a bool property into the device that does the reboot, or would you put it as reference into the /chosen or /aliases node? I think the latter would be better as it avoids any ambiguity, but either way would work. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/