Re: [PATCH] mmc: pwrseq: Use highest priority for eMMC restart handler

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Krzysztof,

On 10/22/2015 03:43 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22.10.2015 10:20, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:> Hello Krzysztof,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> On 10/22/2015 02:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22.10.2015 00:15, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> 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>
>>>> Tested-by: Markus Reichl <m.reichl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Tested-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> This patch was needed since a recent series from Alim [0] added
>>>> syscon reboot and poweroff support to Exynos SoCs and removed
>>>> the reset handler in the Exynos Power Management Unit (PMU) code.
>>>>
>>>> But the PMU and syscon-reboot restart handler have a different
>>>> priority so [0] breaks restart when eMMC is used on these boards.
>>>>
>>>> [0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg454396.html
>>>>
>>>> So this patch must be merged before [0] to avoid regressions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Javier
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_emmc.c | 6 +++---
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_emmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_emmc.c
>>>> index 137c97fb7aa8..ad4f94ec7e8d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_emmc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_emmc.c
>>>> @@ -84,11 +84,11 @@ struct mmc_pwrseq *mmc_pwrseq_emmc_alloc(struct mmc_host *host,
>>>>  
>>>>  	/*
>>>>  	 * register reset handler to ensure emmc reset also from
>>>> -	 * emergency_reboot(), priority 129 schedules it just before
>>>> -	 * system reboot
>>>> +	 * emergency_reboot(), priority 255 is the highest priority
>>>> +	 * so it will be executed before any system reboot handler.
>>>>  	 */
>>>>  	pwrseq->reset_nb.notifier_call = mmc_pwrseq_emmc_reset_nb;
>>>> -	pwrseq->reset_nb.priority = 129;
>>>> +	pwrseq->reset_nb.priority = 255;
>>>
>>> I see the problem which you are trying to solve but this may be tricker
>>> then just kicking the number. Some of restart handlers are registered
>>> with priority 192. I found few of such, like: at91_restart_nb,
>>> zynq_slcr_restart_nb, rmobile_reset_nb (maybe more, I did not grep too
>>> much).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the syscon-reboot restart handler also uses a priority 192 and that
>> is why reboot with eMMC broke with Alim's patches since the PMU restart
>> handler priority is 128.
>>
>>> I guess they chose the "192" priority on purpose.
>>>
>>
>> I tried to understand what's the policy w.r.t priority numbering for
>> restart handlers but only found this in the register_restart_handler
>> kernel-doc [0]:
>>
>> /**
>>  *	register_restart_handler - Register function to be called to reset
>>  *				   the system
>>  *	@nb: Info about handler function to be called
>>  *	@nb->priority:	Handler priority. Handlers should follow the
>>  *			following guidelines for setting priorities.
>>  *			0:	Restart handler of last resort,
>>  *				with limited restart capabilities
>>  *			128:	Default restart handler; use if no other
>>  *				restart handler is expected to be available,
>>  *				and/or if restart functionality is
>>  *				sufficient to restart the entire system
>>  *			255:	Highest priority restart handler, will
>>  *				preempt all other restart handlers
>>
>> So, reading that is not clear to me if only the values 0, 128 and 255
>> should be used or any value from 0-255.
>>
>> What's clear to me is that restart handlers to reset a specific hw block
>> should be called before the restart handler that resets the whole system.
>>
>> The 192 seems to be used because there are other default restart handlers
>> that are using a prio of 128. See for example the commit that changed the
>> syscon-reboot prio from 128 to 192:
>>
>> b81180b3fd48 power: reset: adjust priority of simple syscon reboot driver
> 
> But were are here not talking about syscon handler but the others. Now
> you will be ahead of them.
>

Yes, I know that. My point was that the platforms were either not using the
mmc-pwrseq-emmc or their system restart handler already had a lower priority
but that is not true for at least rk3288-veyron as you said.
 
>>
>> So probably the 192 value was chosen because is in the middle of 128 and
>> 255 but it seems to me a rather arbitrary value and I would prefer it to
>> be documented in some place.
>>
>>> Effectively, now the emmc handler will be executed before their
>>> handlers... is it an issue? Maybe some testing on these platforms is
>>> necessary?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think is an issue, the reason why I chose 255 is that it is
>> a documented value in the kernel-doc and since is the highest prio,
>> it makes sure the eMMC will be reset before any system restart handler.
>>
>> Also, the pwrseq_emmc driver is only used in platforms whose SoC ROM
>> can either leave the eMMC in an unknown state so the kernel needs to
>> hw reset the eMMC or does not have a reset logic so it can only read
>> from an eMMC if is in a known state (i.e: after a reset from kernel).
> 
> I think at least one platform may be affected because it used
> mmc-pwrseq-emmc and gpio-restart.
> 
> Look at rk3288-veyron.dtsi.
> 
> Both of restart handlers had the priority of 129 which means that the
> order of execution depends on probing sequence. Now you will make the
> sequence strict - first mmc then gpio.
>

The behavior is going to change indeed in that board but no due probe
order but because the gpio-restart handler dev node has priority = <200>
which overrides the default 129 in the gpio-restart driver.

So before $SUBJECT the eMMC restart handler was not executed but now it
will be after this change.

> You seems convinced that this is not a problem... I don't know. I would
> prefer test this on affected platforms before risking to break them.
> It's annoying if fix for one SoC breaks another.
>

Agreed.
 
>>
>> Since the current mmc_pwrseq_emmc_reset_nb notifier priority is 129,
>> eMMC reset will not work if one of the platforms you mentioned needs
>> this since the system restart handler with prio 192 will be executed
>> before the eMMC one, leaving the eMMC in an unknown state on reboot.
> 
> And now you will "fix this" by making eMMC working correctly. So let's
> make it straight:
> 1. Previously the eMMC could be left on these platforms in an unknown
> state (because emmc handler was not executed).
> 2. No one complained! Which could mean that in fact this was working fine...
> 3. Now you will change it.
> 4. Maybe someone will complain?
> 
> Just test it (or get an ack/tested tag). That's all what is needed.
> 

Yes, I never meant that the patch should be merged without testing...

> 
>> And $SUBJECT should not cause any regressions for the platforms that
>> are currently using the pwrseq_emmc, since the restart handler was
>> already being called before the system restart handler so bumping
>> the priority should not cause any effect.
> 
> I found at least one platform where the sequence *might* change. There
> could be more of them.
>

Agreed, I missed that rk3288-veyron is using a restart handler with higher
priority and could be other boards too as you said.

Let's see what is Marek's opinion since he added the pwrseq_emmc support
and also what Ulf thinks about always doing a eMMC reset before reboot.

I can't think how doing a eMMC card reset before reboot could affect a
board but you are right that we don't know without testing.
 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/