halt vs halt -p

[David Boutcher]

Well, validate the iSeries path.  On the iSeries, OS4/400 kicks off a
graceful shutdown of the Linux partition, and at the end it is supposed to
end up powered off.  I'm not sure if that ends up in iSeries_halt(void)or
not.

Dave Boutcher
IBM Linux Technology Center




             Jake Moilanen
             <moilanen at austin.
             ibm.com>                                                   To
             Sent by:                  PPC64 External List
             owner-linuxppc64-         <linuxppc64-dev at lists.linuxppc.org>
             dev at lists.linuxpp                                          cc
             c.org
                                                                   Subject
                                       halt vs halt -p
             02/04/2004 02:19
             PM









Maybe I don't know the history, but why do we power-off on a 'halt'?
According to the man page, we shouldn't power-off unless it's a 'halt
-p' or a 'poweroff'.

I checked x86 and it doesn't do anything on a halt.  I put a patch below
of what I would have expected the code to look like.

Thanks,
Jake

  diff -Nru a/arch/ppc64/kernel/iSeries_setup.c
b/arch/ppc64/kernel/iSeries_setup.c
--- a/arch/ppc64/kernel/iSeries_setup.c Wed Feb  4 13:37:46 2004
+++ b/arch/ppc64/kernel/iSeries_setup.c Wed Feb  4 13:37:46 2004
@@ -786,7 +786,6 @@
  */
 void iSeries_halt(void)
 {
-       mf_powerOff();
 }

 /* JDH Hack */
diff -Nru a/arch/ppc64/kernel/rtas.c b/arch/ppc64/kernel/rtas.c
--- a/arch/ppc64/kernel/rtas.c  Wed Feb  4 13:37:46 2004
+++ b/arch/ppc64/kernel/rtas.c  Wed Feb  4 13:37:46 2004
@@ -417,7 +417,6 @@
 {
        if (rtas_firmware_flash_list.next)
                rtas_flash_bypass_warning();
-        rtas_power_off();
 }

 unsigned long rtas_rmo_buf = 0;


** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/