On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:47:35PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 07.10.14 19:00, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > 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. > > And there go my patch reading skills ... :). > > For which window are you targeting this? 3.18 or 3.19? If you're trying > to hit 3.18, I can easily wait with my patch set and base it on top of > yours. > Definitely 3.19; this is way too late for 3.18 and will need some time to mature in -next.
I can merge with your code once it is ready to go and you can make an immutable branch available. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
