From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] powerpc: Replace ppc_md.power_off with pm_power_off From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: "Mark A. Greer" In-Reply-To: <20071204180148.GA1579@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20071204053736.GA27862@mag.az.mvista.com> <20071204054821.GF27862@mag.az.mvista.com> <1196752989.13230.265.camel@pasglop> <20071204180148.GA1579@mag.az.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:55:52 +1100 Message-Id: <1196798152.13230.308.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:01 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:23:09PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 22:48 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > From: Mark A. Greer > > > > > > The ppc_md.power_off hook performs the same function that the > > > pm_power_off hook is supposed to. However, it is powerpc-specific > > > and prevents kernel drivers (e.g., IPMI) from changing how a platform > > > is powered off. So, get rid of ppc_md.power_off and replace it with > > > pm_power_off. > > > > I'm less happy with that one... probably aesthetics :-) > > > > Can't we just have the generic code call pm_power_off and ppc_md and > > which ever powers the machine off wins ? > > Yes, that would be easy to do. Seems like duplication though. > If you are sure you're okay with the duplication, I'll do that. Let's ask Paulus what he thinks. Ben.