[PATCH 00/20] powerpc: Convert power off logic to pm_power_off

[Alexander Graf]

On 07.10.14 19:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07.10.14 08:25, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 12:00 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03.10.14 06:42, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 15:27 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> The generic Linux framework to power off the machine is a function pointer
>>>>>> called pm_power_off. The trick about this pointer is that device drivers can
>>>>>> potentially implement it rather than board files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today on PowerPC we set pm_power_off to invoke our generic full machine power
>>>>>> off logic which then calls ppc_md.power_off to invoke machine specific power
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To fix this up, let's get rid of the ppc_md.power_off logic and just always use
>>>>>> pm_power_off as was intended. Then individual drivers such as the GPIO power off
>>>>>> driver can implement power off logic via that function pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks OK to me with one caveat.
>>>>>
>>>>> In several of the patches you're replacing a static initialisation with a
>>>>> runtime one, and you're doing the runtime initialisation in xxx_setup_arch().
>>>>> That's reasonably late, so I'd prefer you did it in xxx_probe().
>>>>
>>>> Heh, I had it in xxx_probe() originally and then realized that
>>>>
>>>>   a) the power off function is basically a driver. Driver initialization
>>>> happens in xxx_setup_arch() and
>>>>
>>>>   b) the maple target already does overwrite its power_off callback in
>>>> xxx_setup_arch and
>>>>
>>>>   c) on all targets xxx_probe() is very slim and doesn't do much
>>>>
>>>> but I'll happily change it back to put the bits in xxx_probe() instead.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> That way you shouldn't be changing behaviour.
>>>
>>> It may still be the case that some power off routines don't actually work until
>>> later, but that's an existing problem. Some power off routines *do* work before
>>> setup_arch(), so they will continue to work.
>>
>> Ok, works for me :). Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the
>> reasoning why I didn't do it in probe().
>>
>>> Also, how does your series interact with Guenter's that removes pm_power_off ?
>>> It seems at the moment they are unaware of each other.
>>
>> Guenters patches convert users of pm_power_off to his new scheme. We're
>> not even at that stage at all yet in the powerpc tree. Converting
>> everything to pm_power_off is basically a first step. His patch set
>> maintains pm_power_off, so there shouldn't be nasty conflicts.
>>
> Onlly the first m68k patch, though. The very last patch in the series
> remvoes pm_power_off.

And there go my patch reading skills ... :).

For which window are you targeting this? 3.18 or 3.19? If you're trying
to hit 3.18, I can easily wait with my patch set and base it on top of
yours.


Alex