On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 07:50:20PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2014-11-11 10:20:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > Introduce a system power-off 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 > > > > power-off > > > > functionality are expected to register with this call chain. By using > > > > the > > > > priority field in the notifier block, callers can control power-off > > > > handler > > > > > > Linus rather disliked the idea of notifier chains for this... And I > > > don't see how it got addressed. > > > > > Hi all, > > > > After more thought, I concluded that it is technically impossible to support > > multiple power-off handlers without some kind of list or call chain, no > > matter > > how it is called. Given the opposition from Linus and the power maintainers > > to the series, I decided to shelf it. > > Well, you can still do preparations -- current code directly setting > pm_power_off is ugly -- so that if you want to switch to call chain > later, it will be easy. > Yes, it is ugly, but with pretty much everyone who counts opposed to my proposal for a cleanup I don't really have an idea how to continue. In addition to that, I did this as a community project in my free time, I don't need it myself, I already spent way more time on it than I thought it would take, there is no end in sight, and other things I am working on are significantly more important for me. At some point one has to cut one's losses.
Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
