Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:07:46 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add pci shutdown ability |
| |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:23:09PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >Well it seems that people are starting to want to hook the reboot > >notifier, or the device shutdown facility in order to properly shutdown > >pci drivers to make kexec work nicer. > > > >So here's a patch for the PCI core that allows pci drivers to now just > >add a "shutdown" notifier function that will be called when the system > >is being shutdown. It happens just after the reboot notifier happens, > >and it should happen in the proper device tree order, so everyone should > >be happy. > > > >Any objections to this patch? > > Traditionally the proper place -has- been > * the reboot notifier > * the ->remove hook (hot unplug, and module remove)
The latter doesn't get called on power-down, which is what the recent patches for the kexec "fixes" seem to want.
> which covers all the cases.
But do we really want every pci driver adding a reboot notifier? It's simple, yes, but a lot of extra code everywhere, that I'm pretty sure the shutdown() hook was ment to handle.
> Add a ->shutdown hook is more of a hack. If you want to introduce this > facility in a systematic way, introduce a 'kexec reboot' option which > walks the device tree and shuts down hardware.
Why would "kexec reboot" be any different from the "normal" system shutdown?
> ->shutdown is just a piecemeal, uncoordinated effort (uncoordinated in > the sense that driver shutdowns occur in an undefined order).
->shutdown looks like it walks the device tree and shuts down the hardware in the proper order, why do you think it is an undefined order?
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |