[PATCH 12/17] ARM: mvebu: Armada XP GP specific suspend/resume code

[thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni)]

Dear Andrew Lunn,

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:59:39 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

> > Right. But for existing notifier chains, the existence, semantic and
> > meaning of the parameters are already defined, and the gazillions users
> > of that notifier chain in the kernel rely on those parameters to not
> > change.
> 
> That is not really true. Lets start off with:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/21/56
> 
> This is brand new code, implementing the poweroff handler call chain.
> Take a look at do_kernel_power_off(). It passes a NULL pointer as the
> parameter to the handler function. So there are not gazillions users
> of that notifier chain in the kernel rely on those parameters to not
> change.

Ok now I understand why I didn't see it. This code is not in mainline.
And actually, it doesn't seem to be close from hitting mainline when
reading the reaction of Rafael Wysocki on the main patch:

"""
Well, I must admit to having second thoughts regarding this particular
mechanism.  Namely, notifiers don't seem to be the best way of
expressing what's needed from the design standpoint.
"""

So I'm a bit reluctant to create a dependency of the Armada XP
suspend/resume code to a very large unmerged patch series that doesn't
seem to even be close of having a consensus amongst the maintainers.

Isn't this something we can rework afterwards once the poweroff
discussion has settled? I wouldn't mind declaring the particular
aspects of the DT bindings related to the PIC GPIOs as "staging", so
that we keep the freedom to change them for a few kernel releases until
we settle on the final solution for that.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com