diff mbox

[03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off

Message ID 1412659726-29957-4-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Guenter Roeck Oct. 7, 2014, 5:28 a.m. UTC
Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler.
Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff
handler has been installed.

Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki Oct. 7, 2014, 11:41 p.m. UTC | #1
On Monday, October 06, 2014 10:28:05 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler.
> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff
> handler has been installed.
> 
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

ACK

> ---
>  kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void)
>  	case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
>  		hibernation_platform_enter();
>  	case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
> -		if (pm_power_off)
> +		if (have_kernel_poweroff())
>  			kernel_power_off();
>  		break;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
>
Pavel Machek Oct. 9, 2014, 10:32 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler.
> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff
> handler has been installed.
> 
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void)
>  	case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
>  		hibernation_platform_enter();
>  	case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
> -		if (pm_power_off)
> +		if (have_kernel_poweroff())
>  			kernel_power_off();
>  		break;

poweroff -> power_off.

But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to
introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check
have_..?
									Pavel
Guenter Roeck Oct. 9, 2014, 1:24 p.m. UTC | #3
On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler.
>> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff
>> handler has been installed.
>>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
>> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
>> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> ---
>>   kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void)
>>   	case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
>>   		hibernation_platform_enter();
>>   	case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
>> -		if (pm_power_off)
>> +		if (have_kernel_poweroff())
>>   			kernel_power_off();
>>   		break;
>
> poweroff -> power_off.
>
As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish
existing functions from poweroff handler functions.

> But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to
> introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check
> have_..?
> 									Pavel

I am trying not to change existing behavior.

kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup
before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff
(or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff.

Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to
enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide
to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from
the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to
register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple,
since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various
places.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644
--- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
+++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@  static void power_down(void)
 	case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
 		hibernation_platform_enter();
 	case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
-		if (pm_power_off)
+		if (have_kernel_poweroff())
 			kernel_power_off();
 		break;
 #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND