On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 01:05:46PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > On 12/4/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:01 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:23:09PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 22:48 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > > > From: Mark A. Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > The ppc_md.power_off hook performs the same function that the > > > > > pm_power_off hook is supposed to. However, it is powerpc-specific > > > > > and prevents kernel drivers (e.g., IPMI) from changing how a platform > > > > > is powered off. So, get rid of ppc_md.power_off and replace it with > > > > > pm_power_off. > > > > > > > > I'm less happy with that one... probably aesthetics :-) > > > > > > > > Can't we just have the generic code call pm_power_off and ppc_md and > > > > which ever powers the machine off wins ? > > > > > > Yes, that would be easy to do. Seems like duplication though. > > > If you are sure you're okay with the duplication, I'll do that. > > > > Let's ask Paulus what he thinks. > > We could simply have the setup code copy the ppc_md.power_off pointer > into pm_power_off; that we retain the nice assignment in > define_machine(), but eliminate the duplicated calls.
Hmm, yeah, that would look nice--nicer than what I have. The only issue I have with it is that we still have duplication and potential for reassigning the wrong one (e.g., reassigning ppc_md.power_off instead of pm_power_off in maple/setup.c:maple_use_rtas_reboot_and_halt_if_present()). We could call both in machine_power_off but that's messy too (IMHO). Paul, do you have an opinion? Mark _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
