On Tue, Jul 31 2018, Brian Norris wrote:

Hi Neil, Boris,

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:12:55PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:05:11 +1000
NeilBrown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:33:13 -0700
I'll leave Neil some time to review/test/comment on the patch before
queuing it, but it looks good to me.  

Thanks.
I can confirm that if I apply this patch, my system won't reboot
properly (as expected), and if I then add

		broken-flash-reset;

to the jedec,spi-nor device, it starts functioning correctly again.

I don't like the pejorative "broken", and it also suggests that a thing
used to work, but something happened to break it - this is not
accurate.
I would prefer something like "reset-not-connected" which is an accurate
description of the state of the hardware.

One reason I didn't specifically say something like "not connected", is
because IIUC it's actually *possible* to have a robust boot sequence
without the RESET# pin -- e.g., if your boot ROM hardcoded a software
reset command (just because it's not really standardized doesn't mean
one can't do it).

Yes, if we could change the hardware (ROM is hardware) there are various
things we could do to improve reliability.
What we want to do in devicetree is to describe the (unchangeable)
hardware so that Linux can work with it as well as possible.

If I have hardware that doesn't reset the flash on reset, then labeling
it
  doesnt-reset-flash-on-system-reset
is perfectly appropriate.  Labeling it "broken" is pejorative and unhelpful.

quoted

quoted

I also think that having a WARN_ON is an over-reaction.  Certainly a
warning could be appropriate, but just one pr_warn() should be enough.
The "problem" is unlikely in practice, and loudly warning people that an
asteroid might kill them isn't particularly helpful.

I genuinely think that if the system fails to reboot, then Linux is at
fault. I accept that changing Linux to be completely robust might be
more trouble than it is worth, but I don't accept that it is impossible.

Did you read my last response on the original thread? In my
understanding, there's always a way to, e.g., b0rk your exception
handlers, etc., such that you cannot guarantee your software fallbacks
will work. Normally, one would rely on a (hardware) watchdog to do your
last resort reset for you, but if said reset cannot also reset your boot
flash, then...you're stuck.

IOW, it's impossible.

I cannot say for certain if I read your last response, but I've read
quite a few opinions while researching this and think I have a good
handle on the details.

I agree that if you want high reliability then you need a properly
configured hardware watchdog.  Not everyone needs that and not everyone
bothers with a watchdog.
If you do want a watchdog, you would (obviously?) make sure to buy
hardware that supports a watchdog.
But if you choose to buy hardware that doesn't have a watchdog, then it
isn't "broken", it simply doesn't have a watchdog and so can be expected
to freeze if something particularly bad happens.

Linux could get almost arbitrarily sophisticated in ensuring that
the panic-handling code was fully robust and was stored in
write-protected memory, and so be able to reboot cleanly after any
panic.
There will, of course, be situations where it cannot recover (it might
not panic...), but the fact that it needs to reset the flash as part of
recovery shouldn't increase the set of such situations noticeably.

Is that not an accurate description?

quoted

quoted

But I don't intend to fight either of these battles.

Does that mean you're accepting this change? Brian, any comment on what
Neil said?

To be honest, I hate being in the middle of this discussion without
having been involved in the first decision to accept such workarounds.
I keep thinking that making boards that do not have reset properly
wired less likely to fail rebooting is a wise decision, but I also
agree with Brian when he says we should inform people that their design
is unreliable.
The main problem I see here, is that adding this prop won't help people
figuring out what is wrong with their design, it will just help them

How else would we help someone figure out what's wrong with their
design? My best attempt is to make it quite obvious, as long as they're
using vanilla mainline: if their system hangs on reboot (without this
property), then it's probably a bad design.

Is it really our job to help people figure out what's wrong with their
designs (unless they ask)?
I see it as our job to make Linux work reliably.
If a system hangs on reboot, but we can fix reboot so that it doesn't, I
think we should.  Clearly you disagree.

To clearly state my position:
1/ A clean reboot should reboot cleanly, resetting any hardware that
   might need resetting.
2/ an unclean reboot is never guaranteed (though "best effort" is still
   a good goal).  If you need guaranteed unclean reboots, you need a
   properly configured hardware watchdog.

My hardware doesn't have a properly configured hardware watchdog, and I
don't expect it to handle an unclean reboot.  I do expect it to handle a
clean reboot.  I'd rather not be told the hardware is "broken" because
it isn't - it simply doesn't have watchdog support (it doesn't have
hardware floating point either - that doesn't make it 'broken').

Thanks,
NeilBrown

And if instead, someone stuck in this DT property already, the loud
warning might suggest the reader look at the DT binding doc or code
comments, where I elaborated.

quoted

workaround the problem when they find out, and it might already be to
late to fix the HW design. But maybe it's not what we're trying to do
here. Maybe we just want to warn users that rebooting such boards is a
risky procedure.

Brian