On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:07:16 -0700
> Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Factor out a small bit of common code in machine_restart(),
>> machine_power_off() and machine_halt().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> No changes compared to v1.
>>
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c index 714b4ba..5cd3283 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
>> @@ -130,15 +130,22 @@ void machine_shutdown(void)
>> ppc_md.machine_shutdown();
>> }
>>
>> +static void machine_hang(void)
>> +{
>> + pr_emerg("System Halted, OK to turn off power\n");
>> + local_irq_disable();
>> + while (1)
>> + ;
>> +}
>
> What's the intended semantics of this function? A default power
> off handler when the platform supplies none?
I was mostly trying to avoid code duplication in
machine_halt/machine_restart/machine_power_off and didn't intend that
function to be used outside. The semantics is just - to hang the CPU
when things didn't go as expected and code that was supposed to
restart/halt/power off the machine failed.
> Would ppc_power_off()
> be a good name?
Calling it "power_off" seems a bit misleading, the function doesn't
really try to do anything related to powering off, really.
Thanks,
Andrey
