Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:52:19 +0100 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 22/24] firmware: xilinx: Add system shutdown API interface |
| |
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:47:30PM -0800, Jolly Shah wrote: > From: Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@xilinx.com> > > Add system shutdown API interface which asks firmware to > perform system shutdown/restart. > > Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@xilinx.com> > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > Signed-off-by: Jolly Shah <jollys@xilinx.com> > Signed-off-by: Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@xilinx.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h | 4 +++- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c > index f671b6b..d3f637b 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c > @@ -834,6 +834,19 @@ int zynqmp_pm_set_requirement(const u32 node, const u32 capabilities, > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zynqmp_pm_set_requirement); > > /** > + * zynqmp_pm_system_shutdown - PM call to request a system shutdown or restart > + * @type: Shutdown or restart? 0 for shutdown, 1 for restart > + * @subtype: Specifies which system should be restarted or shut down > + * > + * Return: Returns status, either success or error+reason > + */ > +int zynqmp_pm_system_shutdown(const u32 type, const u32 subtype) > +{ > + return zynqmp_pm_invoke_fn(PM_SYSTEM_SHUTDOWN, type, subtype, > + 0, 0, NULL); > +} > + > +/** > * ggs_show - Show global general storage (ggs) sysfs attribute > * @device: Device structure > * @attr: Device attribute structure > diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > index 8ccaa39..13b9fdb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > +++ b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ > > enum pm_api_id { > PM_GET_API_VERSION = 1, > - PM_REQUEST_NODE = 13, > + PM_SYSTEM_SHUTDOWN = 12, > + PM_REQUEST_NODE,
So you might have changed the value of PM_REQUEST_NODE, is that ok?
Why remove the explicit value?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |