On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!@@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void) void machine_power_off(void) { + do_kernel_poweroff(); +poweroff -> power_off for consistency.
Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code, specifically kernel_power_off(). Does anyone else have an opinion ?
index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644 --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c @@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) __attribute__((weak)) void native_machine_power_off(void) { + do_kernel_poweroff(); idle_with_irq_disabled(); }So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning,diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c index b78498e..eaafad0 100644 --- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c @@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void) void machine_power_off(void) { + do_kernel_poweroff(); }Here we don't.diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644 --- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c @@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void) gdbstub_exit(0); #endif + do_kernel_poweroff(); + for (;;); }And here we do. What is right? Pavel
Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered. Guenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
