On 12/4/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:01 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:23:09PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 22:48 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > > From: Mark A. Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > The ppc_md.power_off hook performs the same function that the > > > > pm_power_off hook is supposed to. However, it is powerpc-specific > > > > and prevents kernel drivers (e.g., IPMI) from changing how a platform > > > > is powered off. So, get rid of ppc_md.power_off and replace it with > > > > pm_power_off. > > > > > > I'm less happy with that one... probably aesthetics :-) > > > > > > Can't we just have the generic code call pm_power_off and ppc_md and > > > which ever powers the machine off wins ? > > > > Yes, that would be easy to do. Seems like duplication though. > > If you are sure you're okay with the duplication, I'll do that. > > Let's ask Paulus what he thinks.
We could simply have the setup code copy the ppc_md.power_off pointer into pm_power_off; that we retain the nice assignment in define_machine(), but eliminate the duplicated calls. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev