On Fri 2014-04-18 14:38:34, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Thanks Russell, Alan!
>
> So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
> kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
> cpu_relax()?
>
> Any other changes needed?
>
> If not, I'll send a follow up pat
Thanks Russell, Alan!
So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
cpu_relax()?
Any other changes needed?
If not, I'll send a follow up patch with just these.
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:57:18PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
> > the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
> > machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
> > crash) in generic c
> I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
> the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
> machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
> crash) in generic code.
What would the right behaviour be
while(1);
isn't really nice behavio
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:28:28AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
> >> different to what x86 does.
> >>
> >>
On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
>> different to what x86 does.
>>
>> What is pretty clear to me is that ARM is compatible with x86, which is
>> com
On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > Ping..
> >
> > There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
> >
> > Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never retur
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Ping..
>
> There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
>
> Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
>
> Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have
machine_power_
> On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes
> wrote:
>>> if (pm_power_off)
>>> pm_power_off();
>>> ## It really should do while (1) here.
>> while(1)
>> cpu_relax();
>> or similar at minimum.
Hi Alan, Pavel,
I prepared the changes suggested for AR
Thanks Pavel and Alan for your comments!
I'll rework and try again.
Sebastian
On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> if (pm_power_off)
>> pm_power_off();
>> }
>>
>> ## It really should do while (1) here.
>
> while(1)
> cpu_relax();
>
> if (pm_power_off)
> pm_power_off();
> }
>
> ## It really should do while (1) here.
while(1)
cpu_relax();
or similar at minimum.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@v
Hi!
> Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
> when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
> hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
>
> Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
> SYS_HALT) causes a
Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
SYS_HALT) causes a panic during hibe
14 matches
Mail list logo
