On 11/10/2014 12:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!

@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ twl4030_power_configure_resources(const struct 
twl4030_power_data *pdata)
   * After a successful execution, TWL shuts down the power to the SoC
   * and all peripherals connected to it.
   */
-void twl4030_power_off(void)
+static void twl4030_power_off(struct power_off_handler_block *this)
  {
        int err;

@@ -621,6 +621,11 @@ void twl4030_power_off(void)
                pr_err("TWL4030 Unable to power off\n");
  }

+static struct power_off_handler_block twl4030_power_off_hb = {
+       .handler = twl4030_power_off,
+       .priority = POWER_OFF_PRIORITY_LOW,
+};
+
  static bool twl4030_power_use_poweroff(const struct twl4030_power_data *pdata,
                                        struct device_node *node)
  {
@@ -839,7 +844,9 @@ static int twl4030_power_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
        }

        /* Board has to be wired properly to use this feature */
-       if (twl4030_power_use_poweroff(pdata, node) && !pm_power_off) {
+       if (twl4030_power_use_poweroff(pdata, node)) {
+               int ret;
+
                /* Default for SEQ_OFFSYNC is set, lets ensure this */
                err = twl_i2c_read_u8(TWL_MODULE_PM_MASTER, &val,
                                      TWL4030_PM_MASTER_CFG_P123_TRANSITION);
@@ -856,7 +863,11 @@ static int twl4030_power_probe(struct platform_device 
*pdev)
                        }
                }

-               pm_power_off = twl4030_power_off;
+               ret = devm_register_power_off_handler(&pdev->dev,
+                                                     &twl4030_power_off_hb);
+               if (ret)
+                       dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
+                                "Failed to register power-off handler\n");
        }


Could we get rid of the "struct power_off_handler_block" and guarantee
that register_power_off never fails (or print message from the
register_power_off...)? That way, your patch would be an cleanup.

You could then add priorities if they turn out to be really
neccessary, later...

Priorities are necessary. We had _that_ discussion before.
Priorities solve the problem where multiple handlers are installed,
either conditionally or unconditionally. If I take priorities away,
a substantial part of the patch set's value gets lost, and I might
as well drop it.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to