lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 3/6] kernel/reboot.c: export pm_power_off_prepare
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 05:37:06PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 07:01 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >
> > On 19.06.2017 13:35, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 07:02 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Export pm_power_off_prepare. It is needed to implement power off on
> > > > Freescale/NXP iMX6 based boards with external power management
> > > > integrated circuit (PMIC).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/reboot.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/reboot.c b/kernel/reboot.c
> > > > index bd30a973fe94..a6903bf772c7 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/reboot.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/reboot.c
> > > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ int reboot_force;
> > > >   */
> > > >
> > > >  void (*pm_power_off_prepare)(void);
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_power_off_prepare);
> > > >
> > > Could you register a reboot notifier in the pfuze driver instead? Right
> > > now the only user of pm_power_off_prepare is ACPI so this alternative
> > > seems less intrusive.
> > hm... in this case i will need to make sure that reboot handler is not 
> > executed on reboot. This will make code looks strange. Which is opposite 
> > of your comment in other email about strange standby code for power off :)
> > Should i really do this?
>
> A reboot handler receives a parameter to differentiate between reboot
> and shutdown so it would be easy. Isn't it preferable to use an
> existing mechanism instead of exporting a new symbol?
>
> But maybe somebody else will Ack this, I don't particularly insist on
> changing this.

I just need to make sure, nothing else will do some thing unexpected
with PMIC. Don't forget we use same PMIC_STBY_REQ signal for stanby,
suspend to RAM and for power off. Entering wrong state in wrong moment
will be fatal. This is why I use last possible step before pm_power_off.

--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-20 17:30    [W:0.065 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site