On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of setting pm_power_off
> directly. Register with a low priority value of 64 to reflect that
> the original code only sets pm_power_off if it was not already set.
>
> Other changes:
>
>
On Monday, October 06, 2014 10:28:10 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
> pm_power_off is defined for all architectures. Move it to common code.
>
> Have all architectures call do_kernel_poweroff instead of pm_power_off.
> Some architectures point pm_power_off to machine_power_off. For those,
> call do_kerne
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:08PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> pm_power_off is an implementation detail. Replace it with a more generic
> description of the driver's functionality.
>
> Cc: Rob Herring
> Cc: Pawel Moll
> Cc: Mark Rutland
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck
Acked-by: Andrew Lunn
On Monday, October 06, 2014 10:28:46 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
> No users of pm_power_off are left, so it is safe to remove the function.
>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Cc: Pavel Machek
> Cc: Len Brown
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck
ACK
> ---
> include/linux/pm.h | 1 -
> kernel/po
On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented
> in Linux.
So your argument is that linux/Documentation/devicetree/bindings should
not be specific to Linux. Mer
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of seting pm_power_off
> directly. Register as poweroff handler of last resort since the driver
> does not really power off the system but executes a restart.
I would not say last resort
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:31PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of setting pm_power_off
> directly. Register with default priority value of 128 since we don't know
> any better.
>
> Cc: Julian Andres Klode
> Cc: Marc Dietrich
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartma
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
> > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented
> > in Linux.
>
> So your argument is that lin
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:09PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Replace reference to pm_power_off (which is an implementation detail)
> and replace it with a more generic description of the driver's functionality.
Acked-by: Andrew Lunn
Thanks
Andrew
>
> Cc: Rob Herring
> Cc: Pawel Mo
On 10/07/14 11:59, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
and should thus not describe
On 10/07/2014 09:31 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:21:11AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
>>> and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 10:28:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of setting pm_power_off
> directly. Register with default priority value of 128 to reflect that
> the original code generates an error if another poweroff handler has
> already been regist
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:02:19PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:28:09AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Replace reference to pm_power_off (which is an implementation detail)
> > and replace it with a more generic description of the driver's
> > functionality.
> >
> > Cc
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 05:21:11PM +0100, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 10/07/14 00:28, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Devicetree bindings are supposed to be operating system independent
> > and should thus not describe how a specific functionality is implemented
> > in Linux.
>
> So your argument is that lin
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:28:10AM +0200, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> pm_power_off is defined for all architectures. Move it to common code.
>
> Have all architectures call do_kernel_poweroff instead of pm_power_off.
> Some architectures point pm_power_off to machine_power_off. For those,
> call do_ker
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
> Cc: Pavel Machek
> Cc: Len Br
- Guenter Roeck 写道：
> pm_power_off is defined for all architectures. Move it to common code.
>
> Have all architectures call do_kernel_poweroff instead of pm_power_off.
> Some architectures point pm_power_off to machine_power_off. For those,
> call do_kernel_poweroff from machine_power_off i
17 matches
Mail list logo
