lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] devexit fixes in i82092.c
Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>I wonder if mochel already code for this, or has thought about this...
>> Just like suspend, IMO we ideally should use the device tree to
>>shutdown the system, agreed?
>>
>
>Ideally we should, yes. Although if we really turn off power, it doesn't
>much matter.
>
It matters to a software engineering wonk like me :) I know it
-really- doesn't matter, but from a theoretical perspective, if we are
trying to achieve the "everything is hotpluggable" model, poweroff via
device tree will naturally fall out from that.

If it makes it easier for some, I consider poweroff not as an act unto
itself, but as a transition to state D3cold. :) And since we will
eventually be able to handle transition to similar low-power states, we
might as well follow similar/the same code paths.

>>Further, I wonder if the reboot/shutdown notifiers can be replaced with
>>device tree control over those events...
>>
>
>This is what I want. Those reboot/shutdown notifiers are completely and
>utterly buggy, and cannot sanely handle any kind of device hierarchy.
>
yep

Jeff





-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.117 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site