On 07.10.14 08:25, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 12:00 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 03.10.14 06:42, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 15:27 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> The generic Linux framework to power off the machine is a function pointer >>>> called pm_power_off. The trick about this pointer is that device drivers >>>> can >>>> potentially implement it rather than board files. >>>> >>>> Today on PowerPC we set pm_power_off to invoke our generic full machine >>>> power >>>> off logic which then calls ppc_md.power_off to invoke machine specific >>>> power >>>> off. >>>> >>>> To fix this up, let's get rid of the ppc_md.power_off logic and just >>>> always use >>>> pm_power_off as was intended. Then individual drivers such as the GPIO >>>> power off >>>> driver can implement power off logic via that function pointer. >>> >>> This looks OK to me with one caveat. >>> >>> In several of the patches you're replacing a static initialisation with a >>> runtime one, and you're doing the runtime initialisation in >>> xxx_setup_arch(). >>> That's reasonably late, so I'd prefer you did it in xxx_probe(). >> >> Heh, I had it in xxx_probe() originally and then realized that >> >> a) the power off function is basically a driver. Driver initialization >> happens in xxx_setup_arch() and >> >> b) the maple target already does overwrite its power_off callback in >> xxx_setup_arch and >> >> c) on all targets xxx_probe() is very slim and doesn't do much >> >> but I'll happily change it back to put the bits in xxx_probe() instead. > > Thanks. > > That way you shouldn't be changing behaviour. > > It may still be the case that some power off routines don't actually work > until > later, but that's an existing problem. Some power off routines *do* work > before > setup_arch(), so they will continue to work.
Ok, works for me :). Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the reasoning why I didn't do it in probe(). > Also, how does your series interact with Guenter's that removes pm_power_off ? > It seems at the moment they are unaware of each other. Guenters patches convert users of pm_power_off to his new scheme. We're not even at that stage at all yet in the powerpc tree. Converting everything to pm_power_off is basically a first step. His patch set maintains pm_power_off, so there shouldn't be nasty conflicts. Once we converted from ppc_md tables to actual code, we can just run a simple coccinelle patch to convert from pm_power_off to his new scheme later. Alex _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
