From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/44] kernel: Move pm_power_off to common code Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:14:24 -0700 Message-ID: <54368A30.9070101@roeck-us.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=roeck-us.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=IHjNZRPlQEUg3mo+uxvLoUp1CuBahV2+pPUhGrrwzg8=; b=CW+7zKpk36imaJnnQRny6CDhYFPq18w+zl+87VRXEfyWXZYphfw8ZE62Njo6g8VZCjULT+vxtN1AcPMzuxFuzg1MqQNOH4hY5pDPqalYY3YJZgYsxlSmfPs01aVz3KSxGxWrrQFwxKHKwRDAd1mS8LXHmxQT7RJh329ghDlo6rA=; In-Reply-To: <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux- On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> @@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void) >> void >> machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + > > poweroff -> power_off for consistency. > Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code, specifically kernel_power_off(). Does anyone else have an opinion ? > >> index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644 >> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> @@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> __attribute__((weak)) >> void native_machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> idle_with_irq_disabled(); >> } >> > > So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning, > >> diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> index b78498e..eaafad0 100644 >> --- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> @@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> >> void machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> } >> > > > Here we don't. > >> diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644 >> --- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> @@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void) >> gdbstub_exit(0); >> #endif >> >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + >> for (;;); >> } >> > > And here we do. > > What is right? > Pavel Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/44] kernel: Move pm_power_off to common code Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:14:24 -0700 Message-ID: <54368A30.9070101@roeck-us.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.orglinux- List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> @@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void) >> void >> machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + > > poweroff -> power_off for consistency. > Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code, specifically kernel_power_off(). Does anyone else have an opinion ? > >> index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644 >> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> @@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> __attribute__((weak)) >> void native_machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> idle_with_irq_disabled(); >> } >> > > So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning, > >> diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> index b78498e..eaafad0 100644 >> --- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> @@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> >> void machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> } >> > > > Here we don't. > >> diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644 >> --- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> @@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void) >> gdbstub_exit(0); >> #endif >> >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + >> for (;;); >> } >> > > And here we do. > > What is right? > Pavel Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:34:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:35617 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010944AbaJINeqNWANk (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:34:46 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=roeck-us.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=IHjNZRPlQEUg3mo+uxvLoUp1CuBahV2+pPUhGrrwzg8=; b=CW+7zKpk36imaJnnQRny6CDhYFPq18w+zl+87VRXEfyWXZYphfw8ZE62Njo6g8VZCjULT+vxtN1AcPMzuxFuzg1MqQNOH4hY5pDPqalYY3YJZgYsxlSmfPs01aVz3KSxGxWrrQFwxKHKwRDAd1mS8LXHmxQT7RJh329ghDlo6rA=; Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDrc-000veb-2K for linux-mips@linux-mips.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:34:40 +0000 Received: from 108-223-40-66.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net ([108.223.40.66]:36520 helo=server.roeck-us.net) by bh-25.webhostbox.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDYA-000ZJO-8W; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:14:34 +0000 Message-ID: <54368A30.9070101@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:14:24 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Haavard Skinnemoen , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Steven Miao , Mark Salter , Aurelien Jacquiot , Mikael Starvik , Jesper Nilsson , David Howells , Richard Kuo , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Hirokazu Takata , Geert Uytterhoeven , James Hogan , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Koichi Yasutake , Jonas Bonn , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Chen Liqin , Lennox Wu , "David S. Miller" , Chris Metcalf , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , David Vrabel , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/44] kernel: Move pm_power_off to common code References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 X-CTCH-PVer: 0000001 X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.54368EF0.004B,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-SenderID: linux@roeck-us.net X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 32 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - linux-mips.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: mailgid no entry from get_relayhosts_entry X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 43131 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: linux@roeck-us.net Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> @@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void) >> void >> machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + > > poweroff -> power_off for consistency. > Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code, specifically kernel_power_off(). Does anyone else have an opinion ? > >> index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644 >> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> @@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> __attribute__((weak)) >> void native_machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> idle_with_irq_disabled(); >> } >> > > So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning, > >> diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> index b78498e..eaafad0 100644 >> --- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> @@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> >> void machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> } >> > > > Here we don't. > >> diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644 >> --- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> @@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void) >> gdbstub_exit(0); >> #endif >> >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + >> for (;;); >> } >> > > And here we do. > > What is right? > Pavel Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474AA1A1A34 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:35:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDsP-000wHO-IX for linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: <54368A30.9070101@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:14:24 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/44] kernel: Move pm_power_off to common code References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103847.GC6787@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Steven Miao , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , David Howells , Max Filippov , Paul Mackerras , Ralf Baechle , "H. Peter Anvin" , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Lennox Wu , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Nilsson , lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, Russell King , linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, Len Brown , "David S. Miller" , linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Hirokazu Takata , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Geert Uytterhoeven , Mark Salter , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Matt Turner , Chen Liqin , Jonas Bonn , Haavard Skinnemoen , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, James Hogan , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Aurelien Jacquiot , Heiko Carstens , Jeff Dike , adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Chris Metcalf , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Mikael Starvik , Richard Weinberger , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, Ivan Kokshaysky , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Richard Henderson , Chris Zankel , Michal Simek , Tony Luck , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, Vineet Gupta , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fenghua Yu , Richard Kuo , David Vrabel , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Koichi Yasutake , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Helge Deller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> @@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void) >> void >> machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + > > poweroff -> power_off for consistency. > Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code, specifically kernel_power_off(). Does anyone else have an opinion ? > >> index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644 >> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c >> @@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> __attribute__((weak)) >> void native_machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> idle_with_irq_disabled(); >> } >> > > So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning, > >> diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> index b78498e..eaafad0 100644 >> --- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c >> @@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) >> >> void machine_power_off(void) >> { >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> } >> > > > Here we don't. > >> diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644 >> --- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c >> @@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void) >> gdbstub_exit(0); >> #endif >> >> + do_kernel_poweroff(); >> + >> for (;;); >> } >> > > And here we do. > > What is right? > Pavel Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered. Guenter