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 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 List-Id: devicetree@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