Re: [PATCH 44/44] kernel: Remove pm_power_off

2014-10-07 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: [PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off

2014-10-07 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Rob Landley
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

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread David Daney
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 in Linux

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Mark Rutland
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

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Guenter Roeck
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

Re: [PATCH 29/44] staging: nvec: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
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

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Rob Landley
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

Re: [PATCH 20/44] power/reset: restart-poweroff: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Andrew Lunn
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

Re: [PATCH 23/44] power/reset: qnap-poweroff: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Andrew Lunn
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

Re: [PATCH 21/44] power/reset: gpio-poweroff: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Andrew Lunn
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: > >

Re: [PATCH 07/44] qnap-poweroff: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Guenter Roeck
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

Re: [PATCH 07/44] qnap-poweroff: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Andrew Lunn
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

Re: [PATCH 06/44] gpio-poweroff: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Andrew Lunn
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

Re: [PATCH] efi: Capsule update support

2014-10-07 Thread Matt Fleming
On Tue, 07 Oct, at 03:41:26PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > From: Matt Fleming > > The EFI capsule mechanism allows data blobs to be passed to the EFI > firmware. This patch just introduces the main infrastruture for > interacting with the firmware. > > Once a capsule has been passed to the firmware, t

[PATCH 2/2] efi: Capsule update support

2014-10-07 Thread Matt Fleming
From: Matt Fleming The EFI capsule mechanism allows data blobs to be passed to the EFI firmware. This patch just introduces the main infrastruture for interacting with the firmware. Once a capsule has been passed to the firmware, the next reboot will always be performed using the ResetSystem() E

[PATCH 1/2] efi: Move efi_status_to_err() to efi.h

2014-10-07 Thread Matt Fleming
From: Matt Fleming Move efi_status_to_err() into the efi.h header as it's generally useful in all bits of EFI code where there is a need to convert an efi_status_t to a kernel error value. Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming --- drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c | 33 - inclu

[PATCH] efi: Capsule update support

2014-10-07 Thread Matt Fleming
From: Matt Fleming The EFI capsule mechanism allows data blobs to be passed to the EFI firmware. This patch just introduces the main infrastruture for interacting with the firmware. Once a capsule has been passed to the firmware, the next reboot will always be performed using the ResetSystem() E

Re: [PATCH 06/44] gpio-poweroff: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Mark Rutland
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:28:08AM +0100, 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 Acked-by: Mark Rutland > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck

Re: [PATCH 07/44] qnap-poweroff: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Mark Rutland
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: Rob Herring > Cc: Pawel Moll > Cc: Mark Rutland > Signed-off-by: Guenter

Re: [PATCH 05/44] mfd: as3722: Drop reference to pm_power_off from devicetree bindings

2014-10-07 Thread Mark Rutland
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:28:07AM +0100, 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. > > Cc: Rob Herring > Cc: Pawel Moll > Cc: Mark Rutland > Signed-off-by: Gu

Re: [PATCH 35/44] m68k: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of setting pm_power_off > directly. > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven > Cc: Joshua Thompson > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck As someone already mentioned, having #defines instead of hardcoded numbers fo

Re: [PATCH 04/44] m68k: Replace mach_power_off with pm_power_off

2014-10-07 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Replace mach_power_off with pm_power_off to simplify the subsequent > move of pm_power_off to generic code. Thanks! > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven > Cc: Greg Ungerer > Cc: Joshua Thompson > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck Looks OK, so since you

Re: [PATCH 31/44] arm: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Nicolas Ferre
On 07/10/2014 07:28, Guenter Roeck : > Register with kernel poweroff handler instead of setting pm_power_off > directly. Always use register_poweroff_handler_simple as there is no > indication that more than one poweroff handler is registered. > > If the poweroff handler only resets the system or

Re: [PATCH 12/44] mfd: ab8500-sysctrl: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Lee Jones
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014, 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. > > Cc: Linus Walleij > Cc: Lee Jones > Cc

Re: [PATCH 18/44] mfd: twl4030-power: Register with kernel poweroff handler

2014-10-07 Thread Lee Jones
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014, 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. > > Make twl4030_power_off static as it is o

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64/efi: efistub: jump to 'stext' directly, not through the header

2014-10-07 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 6 October 2014 21:33, Peter Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:13:01PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 17 July 2014 16:09, Mark Salter wrote: >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 2

Re: [PATCH 01/44] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call chain

2014-10-07 Thread Philippe Rétornaz
Hello This seems exactly what I would need on the mc13783 to handle cleanly the poweroff, but after reading this patchset I have the following question: [...] +/* + * Notifier list for kernel code which wants to be called + * to power off the system. + */ +static ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD