From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/48] kernel: Add support for power-off handler call chain Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:17:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20141111191745.GA24918@roeck-us.net> References: <1415583785-6980-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141110083347.GA29543@amd> <20141111182023.GA21970@roeck-us.net> <20141111185019.GA29452@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:56910 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751831AbaKKTRw (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:17:52 -0500 Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XoGwq-001rJE-20 for linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:17:52 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141111185019.GA29452@amd> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Geert Uytterhoeven , Heiko Stuebner , Lee Jones , Len Brown , Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Romain Perier On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 07:50:20PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2014-11-11 10:20:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Introduce a system power-off handler call chain to solve the described > > > > problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the architecture > > > > specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing system power-off > > > > functionality are expected to register with this call chain. By using the > > > > priority field in the notifier block, callers can control power-off > > > > handler > > > > > > Linus rather disliked the idea of notifier chains for this... And I > > > don't see how it got addressed. > > > > > Hi all, > > > > After more thought, I concluded that it is technically impossible to support > > multiple power-off handlers without some kind of list or call chain, no matter > > how it is called. Given the opposition from Linus and the power maintainers > > to the series, I decided to shelf it. > > Well, you can still do preparations -- current code directly setting > pm_power_off is ugly -- so that if you want to switch to call chain > later, it will be easy. > Yes, it is ugly, but with pretty much everyone who counts opposed to my proposal for a cleanup I don't really have an idea how to continue. In addition to that, I did this as a community project in my free time, I don't need it myself, I already spent way more time on it than I thought it would take, there is no end in sight, and other things I am working on are significantly more important for me. At some point one has to cut one's losses. Guenter