| Message ID | 1412659726-29957-2-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hello This seems exactly what I would need on the mc13783 to handle cleanly the poweroff, but after reading this patchset I have the following question: [...] > +/* > + * Notifier list for kernel code which wants to be called > + * to power off the system. > + */ > +static ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD(poweroff_handler_list); [...] > +void do_kernel_poweroff(void) > +{ > + atomic_notifier_call_chain(&poweroff_handler_list, 0, NULL); > +} > + It seems that the poweroff callback needs to be atomic as per _atomic_notifier_call_chain documentation: "Calls each function in a notifier chain in turn. The functions run in an atomic context" But this is a problem for many MFD (mc13783, twl4030 etc ...) which are accessible on only a blocking bus (SPI, I2C). What I am missing here ? Thanks, Philippe
Hi! > +/** > + * register_poweroff_handler_simple - Register function to be called to power off > + * the system > + * @handler: Function to be called to power off the system > + * @priority: Handler priority. For priority guidelines see > + * register_poweroff_handler. > + * > + * This is a simplified version of register_poweroff_handler. It does not > + * take a notifier as argument, but a function pointer. The function > + * registers a poweroff handler with specified priority. Poweroff > + * handlers registered with this function can not be unregistered, > + * and only a single poweroff handler can be installed using it. > + * > + * This function must not be called from modules and is therefore > + * not exported. > + * > + * Returns -EBUSY if a poweroff handler has already been registered > + * using register_poweroff_handler_simple. Otherwise returns zero, > + * since atomic_notifier_chain_register() currently always returns zero. > + */ > +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority) > +{ > + char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; > + > + if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) { > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler, > + symname); > + pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname); > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname); > + pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname); > + return -EBUSY; > + } Dunno, are you maybe overdoing the debugging infrastructure a bit? This is not going to happen in production, and if it does happen, developer can look the symbol name himself. Pavel
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority) > +{ > + char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; > + > + if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) { > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler, > + symname); > + pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname); > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname); > + pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname); Doesn't %ps work to look up symbols? pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%ps), cannot register %ps\n", poweroff_handler_data.handler, handler); > + return -EBUSY; > + } Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On 10/09/2014 04:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority) >> +{ >> + char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; >> + >> + if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) { >> + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler, >> + symname); >> + pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname); >> + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname); >> + pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname); > > Doesn't %ps work to look up symbols? > > pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%ps), cannot register > %ps\n", poweroff_handler_data.handler, handler); > Hi Geert, That is great. One never stops learning. I'll use that. Thanks! Guenter
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > +/** > > + * register_poweroff_handler_simple - Register function to be called to power off > > + * the system > > + * @handler: Function to be called to power off the system > > + * @priority: Handler priority. For priority guidelines see > > + * register_poweroff_handler. > > + * > > + * This is a simplified version of register_poweroff_handler. It does not > > + * take a notifier as argument, but a function pointer. The function > > + * registers a poweroff handler with specified priority. Poweroff > > + * handlers registered with this function can not be unregistered, > > + * and only a single poweroff handler can be installed using it. > > + * > > + * This function must not be called from modules and is therefore > > + * not exported. > > + * > > + * Returns -EBUSY if a poweroff handler has already been registered > > + * using register_poweroff_handler_simple. Otherwise returns zero, > > + * since atomic_notifier_chain_register() currently always returns zero. > > + */ > > +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority) > > +{ > > + char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; > > + > > + if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) { > > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler, > > + symname); > > + pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname); > > + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname); > > + pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname); > > + return -EBUSY; > > + } > > Dunno, are you maybe overdoing the debugging infrastructure a bit? > This is not going to happen in production, and if it does happen, > developer can look the symbol name himself. On the other side, I don't think it hurts to have that message. Anyway, I'll use %ps as suggested by Geert. Guenter
On 10/06/2014 10:28 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means to > remove power from the system. For the most part, those drivers set the > global variable pm_power_off to point to a function within the driver. > > This mechanism has a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme > to remove power is supported (at least if pm_power_off is used). > At least in theory there can be multiple means remove power, some of > which may be less desirable. For example, some mechanisms may only > power off the CPU or the CPU card, while another may power off the > entire system. Others may really just execute a restart sequence > or drop into the ROM monitor. Using pm_power_off can also be racy > if the function pointer is set from a driver built as module, as the > driver may be in the process of being unloaded when pm_power_off is > called. If there are multiple poweroff handlers in the system, removing > a module with such a handler may inadvertently reset the pointer to > pm_power_off to NULL, leaving the system with no means to remove power. > > Introduce a system poweroff handler call chain to solve the described > problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the > architecture specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing > system poweroff functionality are expected to register with this call chain. > By using the priority field in the notifier block, callers can control > poweroff handler execution sequence and thus ensure that the poweroff > handler with the optimal capabilities to remove power for a given system > is called first. What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. I'm also considering putting the PMIC configuration part into the reboot notifier chain, because it only does things to change the configuration and not actually any shutdown/restart itself. That removes any requirement to get the priority of notifiers right. This series will still be useful for the MMIO register that needs to be toggled though. Right now I have to assign pm_power_off or hook the reboot notifier with a different priority to make this work.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 10/06/2014 10:28 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means to >> remove power from the system. For the most part, those drivers set the >> global variable pm_power_off to point to a function within the driver. >> >> This mechanism has a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme >> to remove power is supported (at least if pm_power_off is used). >> At least in theory there can be multiple means remove power, some of >> which may be less desirable. For example, some mechanisms may only >> power off the CPU or the CPU card, while another may power off the >> entire system. Others may really just execute a restart sequence >> or drop into the ROM monitor. Using pm_power_off can also be racy >> if the function pointer is set from a driver built as module, as the >> driver may be in the process of being unloaded when pm_power_off is >> called. If there are multiple poweroff handlers in the system, removing >> a module with such a handler may inadvertently reset the pointer to >> pm_power_off to NULL, leaving the system with no means to remove power. >> >> Introduce a system poweroff handler call chain to solve the described >> problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the >> architecture specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing >> system poweroff functionality are expected to register with this call chain. >> By using the priority field in the notifier block, callers can control >> poweroff handler execution sequence and thus ensure that the poweroff >> handler with the optimal capabilities to remove power for a given system >> is called first. > > What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my > platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to > configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO > register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. > It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the > slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. I was wondering the same thing. I did find out that things kind of stalled after Linus cast doubt on the chosen path [1]. I'm not sure there's any consensus on what would be best to do instead. Frans [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/6/641
On 06/17/2015 11:53 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 10/06/2014 10:28 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means to >>> remove power from the system. For the most part, those drivers set the >>> global variable pm_power_off to point to a function within the driver. >>> >>> This mechanism has a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme >>> to remove power is supported (at least if pm_power_off is used). >>> At least in theory there can be multiple means remove power, some of >>> which may be less desirable. For example, some mechanisms may only >>> power off the CPU or the CPU card, while another may power off the >>> entire system. Others may really just execute a restart sequence >>> or drop into the ROM monitor. Using pm_power_off can also be racy >>> if the function pointer is set from a driver built as module, as the >>> driver may be in the process of being unloaded when pm_power_off is >>> called. If there are multiple poweroff handlers in the system, removing >>> a module with such a handler may inadvertently reset the pointer to >>> pm_power_off to NULL, leaving the system with no means to remove power. >>> >>> Introduce a system poweroff handler call chain to solve the described >>> problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the >>> architecture specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing >>> system poweroff functionality are expected to register with this call chain. >>> By using the priority field in the notifier block, callers can control >>> poweroff handler execution sequence and thus ensure that the poweroff >>> handler with the optimal capabilities to remove power for a given system >>> is called first. >> >> What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my >> platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to >> configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO >> register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. >> It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the >> slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. > > I was wondering the same thing. I did find out that things kind of > stalled after Linus cast doubt on the chosen path [1]. I'm not sure > there's any consensus on what would be best to do instead. > Linus cast doubt on it, then the maintainers started picking it apart. At the end, trying not to use notifier callbacks made the code so complicated that even I didn't understand it anymore. With no consensus in sight, I abandoned it. Problem is really that the notifier call chain would be perfect to solve the problem, yet Linus didn't like priorities (which are essential), and the power maintainers didn't like that a call chain is supposed to execute _all_ callbacks, which would not be the case here. If I were to start again, I would insist to use notifiers. However, I don't see a chance to get that accepted, so I won't. Feel free to pick it up and give it a try yourself. Thanks, Guenter
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On 06/17/2015 11:53 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/06/2014 10:28 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> >>>> Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means to >>>> remove power from the system. For the most part, those drivers set the >>>> global variable pm_power_off to point to a function within the driver. >>>> >>>> This mechanism has a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme >>>> to remove power is supported (at least if pm_power_off is used). >>>> At least in theory there can be multiple means remove power, some of >>>> which may be less desirable. For example, some mechanisms may only >>>> power off the CPU or the CPU card, while another may power off the >>>> entire system. Others may really just execute a restart sequence >>>> or drop into the ROM monitor. Using pm_power_off can also be racy >>>> if the function pointer is set from a driver built as module, as the >>>> driver may be in the process of being unloaded when pm_power_off is >>>> called. If there are multiple poweroff handlers in the system, removing >>>> a module with such a handler may inadvertently reset the pointer to >>>> pm_power_off to NULL, leaving the system with no means to remove power. >>>> >>>> Introduce a system poweroff handler call chain to solve the described >>>> problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the >>>> architecture specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing >>>> system poweroff functionality are expected to register with this call >>>> chain. >>>> By using the priority field in the notifier block, callers can control >>>> poweroff handler execution sequence and thus ensure that the poweroff >>>> handler with the optimal capabilities to remove power for a given system >>>> is called first. >>> >>> >>> What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my >>> platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to >>> configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO >>> register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. >>> It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the >>> slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. >> >> >> I was wondering the same thing. I did find out that things kind of >> stalled after Linus cast doubt on the chosen path [1]. I'm not sure >> there's any consensus on what would be best to do instead. >> > > Linus cast doubt on it, then the maintainers started picking it apart. > At the end, trying not to use notifier callbacks made the code so > complicated that even I didn't understand it anymore. With no consensus > in sight, I abandoned it. > > Problem is really that the notifier call chain would be perfect to solve > the problem, yet Linus didn't like priorities (which are essential), > and the power maintainers didn't like that a call chain is supposed > to execute _all_ callbacks, which would not be the case here. If I were > to start again, I would insist to use notifiers. However, I don't see > a chance to get that accepted, so I won't. Feel free to pick it up and > give it a try yourself. How about having two phases? One where all interested parts of the system get notified, one that does the final shutdown. It's a slightly different approach than you took, but does use the notifier chains as expected, and can be used to prepare peripherals for shutdown, if there's a use case for it. The two-stage approach does keep the single place to power down. I expect it would become more obvious that it would be silly to have more than one actual system power down sequence and hiding pm_power_off and unifying setting of it should become more straight forward as well. Thoughts? Thanks, Frans
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 06:04:54PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: [ ... ] > > What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my > platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to > configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO > register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. > It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the > slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. > Can you use the .shutdown driver callback instead ? I see other drivers use that, and check for system_state == SYSTEM_POWER_OFF to power off the hardware. Guenter
On 06/18/2015 08:30 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 06:04:54PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > [ ... ] >> What happened to this series? I want to add shutdown support to my >> platform and I need to write a register on the PMIC in one driver to >> configure it for shutdown instead of restart and then write an MMIO >> register to tell the PMIC to actually do the shutdown in another driver. >> It seems that the notifier solves this case for me, albeit with the >> slight complication that I need to order the two with some priority. >> > Can you use the .shutdown driver callback instead ? > > I see other drivers use that, and check for system_state == SYSTEM_POWER_OFF > to power off the hardware. > Yes I think that will work. I'll still have to hook pm_power_off() for the mmio register, but I guess that's ok and I don't need to worry about this series then.
diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h index 72c0fe0..45271b5 100644 --- a/include/linux/pm.h +++ b/include/linux/pm.h @@ -34,6 +34,19 @@ extern void (*pm_power_off)(void); extern void (*pm_power_off_prepare)(void); +/* + * Callbacks to manage poweroff handlers + */ + +struct notifier_block; + +extern int register_poweroff_handler(struct notifier_block *); +extern int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*function)(void), + int priority); +extern int unregister_poweroff_handler(struct notifier_block *); +extern void do_kernel_poweroff(void); +extern bool have_kernel_poweroff(void); + struct device; /* we have a circular dep with device.h */ #ifdef CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE_SLEEP extern void pm_vt_switch_required(struct device *dev, bool required); diff --git a/kernel/power/Makefile b/kernel/power/Makefile index 29472bf..4d9f0c7 100644 --- a/kernel/power/Makefile +++ b/kernel/power/Makefile @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ ccflags-$(CONFIG_PM_DEBUG) := -DDEBUG obj-y += qos.o +obj-y += poweroff_handler.o obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += main.o obj-$(CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE_SLEEP) += console.o obj-$(CONFIG_FREEZER) += process.o diff --git a/kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c b/kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ed99e5e --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +/* + * linux/kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c - Poweroff handling functions + * + * Copyright (c) 2014 Guenter Roeck + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version + * 2 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version. + */ + +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "poweroff: " fmt + +#include <linux/ctype.h> +#include <linux/export.h> +#include <linux/kallsyms.h> +#include <linux/notifier.h> +#include <linux/pm.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/types.h> + +/* + * Notifier list for kernel code which wants to be called + * to power off the system. + */ +static ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD(poweroff_handler_list); + +/** + * register_poweroff_handler - Register function to be called to power off + * the system + * @nb: Info about handler function to be called + * @nb->priority: Handler priority. Handlers should follow the + * following guidelines for setting priorities. + * 0: Poweroff handler of last resort, + * with limited poweroff capabilities, + * such as poweroff handlers which + * do not really power off the system + * but loop forever or stop the CPU. + * 128: Default poweroff handler; use if no other + * poweroff handler is expected to be available, + * and/or if poweroff functionality is + * sufficient to power off the entire system + * 255: Highest priority poweroff handler, will + * preempt all other poweroff handlers + * + * Registers a function with code to be called to power off the + * system. + * + * Registered functions will be called from machine_power_off as last + * step of the poweroff sequence. Registered functions are expected + * to power off the system immediately. If more than one function is + * registered, the poweroff handler priority selects which function + * will be called first. + * + * Poweroff handlers may be registered from architecture code or from + * drivers. A typical use case would be a system where power off + * functionality is provided through a multi-function chip or through + * a programmable power controller. Multiple poweroff handlers may exist; + * for example, one poweroff handler might power off the entire system, + * while another only powers off the CPU card. In such cases, the + * poweroff handler which only powers off part of the hardware is + * expected to register with low priority to ensure that it only + * runs if no other means to power off the system are available. + * + * Currently always returns zero, as atomic_notifier_chain_register() + * always returns zero. + */ +int register_poweroff_handler(struct notifier_block *nb) +{ + return atomic_notifier_chain_register(&poweroff_handler_list, nb); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_poweroff_handler); + +/** + * unregister_poweroff_handler - Unregister previously registered + * poweroff handler + * @nb: Hook to be unregistered + * + * Unregisters a previously registered poweroff handler function. + * + * Returns zero on success, or %-ENOENT on failure. + */ +int unregister_poweroff_handler(struct notifier_block *nb) +{ + return atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&poweroff_handler_list, nb); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_poweroff_handler); + +struct _poweroff_handler_data { + void (*handler)(void); + struct notifier_block poweroff_nb; +}; + +static int _poweroff_handler(struct notifier_block *this, + unsigned long _unused1, void *_unused2) +{ + struct _poweroff_handler_data *poh = + container_of(this, struct _poweroff_handler_data, poweroff_nb); + + poh->handler(); + + return NOTIFY_DONE; +} + +static struct _poweroff_handler_data poweroff_handler_data; + +/** + * register_poweroff_handler_simple - Register function to be called to power off + * the system + * @handler: Function to be called to power off the system + * @priority: Handler priority. For priority guidelines see + * register_poweroff_handler. + * + * This is a simplified version of register_poweroff_handler. It does not + * take a notifier as argument, but a function pointer. The function + * registers a poweroff handler with specified priority. Poweroff + * handlers registered with this function can not be unregistered, + * and only a single poweroff handler can be installed using it. + * + * This function must not be called from modules and is therefore + * not exported. + * + * Returns -EBUSY if a poweroff handler has already been registered + * using register_poweroff_handler_simple. Otherwise returns zero, + * since atomic_notifier_chain_register() currently always returns zero. + */ +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority) +{ + char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; + + if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) { + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler, + symname); + pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname); + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname); + pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname); + return -EBUSY; + } + + poweroff_handler_data.handler = handler; + poweroff_handler_data.poweroff_nb.notifier_call = _poweroff_handler; + poweroff_handler_data.poweroff_nb.priority = priority; + + return register_poweroff_handler(&poweroff_handler_data.poweroff_nb); +} + +/** + * do_kernel_poweroff - Execute kernel poweroff handler call chain + * + * Calls functions registered with register_poweroff_handler. + * + * Expected to be called from machine_power_off as last step of + * the poweroff sequence. + * + * Powers off the system immediately if a poweroff handler function + * has been registered. Otherwise does nothing. + */ +void do_kernel_poweroff(void) +{ + atomic_notifier_call_chain(&poweroff_handler_list, 0, NULL); +} + +/** + * have_kernel_poweroff() - Check if kernel poweroff handler is available + * + * Returns true is a kernel poweroff handler is available, false otherwise. + */ +bool have_kernel_poweroff(void) +{ + return pm_power_off != NULL || poweroff_handler_list.head != NULL; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(have_kernel_poweroff);
Various drivers implement architecture and/or device specific means to remove power from the system. For the most part, those drivers set the global variable pm_power_off to point to a function within the driver. This mechanism has a number of drawbacks. Typically only one scheme to remove power is supported (at least if pm_power_off is used). At least in theory there can be multiple means remove power, some of which may be less desirable. For example, some mechanisms may only power off the CPU or the CPU card, while another may power off the entire system. Others may really just execute a restart sequence or drop into the ROM monitor. Using pm_power_off can also be racy if the function pointer is set from a driver built as module, as the driver may be in the process of being unloaded when pm_power_off is called. If there are multiple poweroff handlers in the system, removing a module with such a handler may inadvertently reset the pointer to pm_power_off to NULL, leaving the system with no means to remove power. Introduce a system poweroff handler call chain to solve the described problems. This call chain is expected to be executed from the architecture specific machine_power_off() function. Drivers providing system poweroff functionality are expected to register with this call chain. By using the priority field in the notifier block, callers can control poweroff handler execution sequence and thus ensure that the poweroff handler with the optimal capabilities to remove power for a given system is called first. Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> Cc: Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> --- include/linux/pm.h | 13 +++ kernel/power/Makefile | 1 + kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c | 172 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 186 insertions(+) create mode 100644 kernel/power/poweroff_handler.c