Message-ID: <20140630202851.GA12888@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:28:51 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] kernel: Add support for restart notifier call
 chain

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:59:47PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means
> > to restart (reset) the system. Various mechanisms have been implemented
> > to support those schemes. The best known mechanism is arm_pm_restart,
> > which is a function pointer to be set either from platform specific code
> > or from drivers. Another mechanism is to use hardware watchdogs to issue
> > a reset; this mechanism is used if there is no other method available
> > to reset a board or system. Two examples are alim7101_wdt, which currently
> > uses the reboot notifier to trigger a reset, and moxart_wdt, which registers
> > the arm_pm_restart function.
> > 
> > The existing mechanisms have a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme
> > to restart the system is supported (at least if arm_pm_restart is used).
> > At least in theory there can be mutliple means to restart the system, some of
> > which may be less desirable (for example one mechanism may only reset the CPU,
> > while another may reset the entire system). Using arm_pm_restart can also be
> > racy if the function pointer is set from a driver, as the driver may be in
> > the process of being unloaded when arm_pm_restart is called.
> > Using the reboot notifier is always racy, as it is unknown if and when
> > other functions using the reboot notifier have completed execution
> > by the time the watchdog fires.
> > 
> > To solve the problem, introduce a system restart notifier. This notifier
> > is expected to be called from the architecture specific machine_restart()
> > function. Drivers providing system restart functionality (such as the watchdog
> > drivers mentioned above) are expected to register with this notifier.
> > 
> > Patch 1 of this series implements the notifier function. Patches 2 and 3
> > implement calling the notifier chain from arm and arm64 restart code.
> > Patch 4 and 5 convert existing restart handlers in the watchdog subsystem
> > to use the restart notifier. Patch 6 unexports arm_pm_restart to ensure
> > that no one gets the idea to implement a restart handler as module.
> 
> I think you need to restructure stuff somewhat, because I think
> you've missed drivers/power/reset/ entirely, or at least you've
> missed drivers/power/reset/restart-poweroff.c which calls
> arm_pm_restart directly.  I'm not quite sure how we ended up with
> that...
> 
Yes, guess I missed (and did not really expect) that arm_pm_restart
is called from multiple places.

What is restart-poweroff supposed to do in the first place, and why
doesn't it call machine_restart() ? If it is what I think it is, ie
a fallback for pm_power_off, it could be made generic and does not
really have to depend on ARM.

Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists