From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
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: <linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141009103847.GC6787@amd>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
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: devicetree@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