From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751928AbaKKSu0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:50:26 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:57671 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751306AbaKKSuX (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:50:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:50:20 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Guenter Roeck Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Geert Uytterhoeven , Heiko Stuebner , LeeJon@roeck-us.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/48] kernel: Add support for power-off handler call chain Message-ID: <20141111185019.GA29452@amd> References: <1415583785-6980-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141110083347.GA29543@amd> <20141111182023.GA21970@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141111182023.GA21970@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. And if that does not happen, we still get the cleanup :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html