On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > 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. > Onlly the first m68k patch, though. The very last patch in the series remvoes pm_power_off.
Guenter > 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
