From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -0700 Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@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=U94sfdSA70105YmnE1feyGPTziXsD8ztWWB7mU43L+M=; b=AsD05gqd8qeWWMYqQzteHBW1FEaDj52uLAZoyHowHv6WqMeWo4OTxyNsDUM+r8DIPmyz9HQSC7eG6a2ZIcsIFUi8a/Y60DR0vKoHsqvaCWtztybqoI6w4xGD5BbJN3FJnto2KbPkIzu49LDkOiy4wq1yTXRt2ykHidHRe5gbHDM=; In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Rafael J. Wysocki On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:24:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off Message-Id: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> List-Id: References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, Rafael On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:34316 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27010937AbaJINYjzeYSz (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:24:39 +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=U94sfdSA70105YmnE1feyGPTziXsD8ztWWB7mU43L+M=; b=AsD05gqd8qeWWMYqQzteHBW1FEaDj52uLAZoyHowHv6WqMeWo4OTxyNsDUM+r8DIPmyz9HQSC7eG6a2ZIcsIFUi8a/Y60DR0vKoHsqvaCWtztybqoI6w4xGD5BbJN3FJnto2KbPkIzu49LDkOiy4wq1yTXRt2ykHidHRe5gbHDM=; Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDhn-000iKc-WD for linux-mips@linux-mips.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:24:32 +0000 Received: from 108-223-40-66.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net ([108.223.40.66]:36565 helo=server.roeck-us.net) by bh-25.webhostbox.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDha-000iGU-V1; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:24:19 +0000 Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -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, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@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=0001.0A020202.54368C90.000D,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: 8 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: 43128 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 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -0700 Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: 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, Rafael List-ID: On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. 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 3B2B91A1684 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:25:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XcDii-000izA-1w for linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:25:28 +0000 Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@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, Len Brown , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, lguest@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752417AbaJIN0B (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:26:01 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:52549 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751195AbaJINZy (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:25:54 -0400 Message-ID: <54368C7D.5040402@roeck-us.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:24:13 -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@vger.kernel.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, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141009103254.GB6787@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141009103254.GB6787@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=0001.0A020204.54368CE2.00A4,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: 36 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 - vger.kernel.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: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler. >> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff >> handler has been installed. >> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek >> Cc: Len Brown >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck >> --- >> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c >> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void) >> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM: >> hibernation_platform_enter(); >> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN: >> - if (pm_power_off) >> + if (have_kernel_poweroff()) >> kernel_power_off(); >> break; > > poweroff -> power_off. > As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish existing functions from poweroff handler functions. > But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to > introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check > have_..? > Pavel I am trying not to change existing behavior. kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff (or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff. Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple, since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various places. Guenter