On Fri 2014-04-18 14:38:34, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Thanks Russell, Alan!
>
> So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
> kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
> cpu_relax()?
>
> Any other changes needed?
>
> If not, I'll send a follow up
On Fri 2014-04-18 14:38:34, Sebastian Capella wrote:
Thanks Russell, Alan!
So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
cpu_relax()?
Any other changes needed?
If not, I'll send a follow up patch with
Thanks Russell, Alan!
So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
cpu_relax()?
Any other changes needed?
If not, I'll send a follow up patch with just these.
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this
Thanks Russell, Alan!
So we're OK with the current patch + replacing while(1) after
kernel_halt at the end of power_down in hibernate.c with a while (1)
cpu_relax()?
Any other changes needed?
If not, I'll send a follow up patch with just these.
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:57:18PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
> > the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
> > machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
> > crash) in generic
> I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
> the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
> machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
> crash) in generic code.
What would the right behaviour be
while(1);
isn't really nice
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:28:28AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
> >> different to what x86 does.
> >>
>
On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
>> different to what x86 does.
>>
>> What is pretty clear to me is that ARM is compatible with x86, which is
>>
On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
different to what x86 does.
What is pretty clear to me is that ARM is compatible with x86, which is
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:28:28AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
On 15 April 2014 14:18, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
different to what x86 does.
I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
crash) in generic code.
What would the right behaviour be
while(1);
isn't really nice behaviour
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:57:18PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that
machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
crash) in generic code.
On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > Ping..
> >
> > There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
> >
> > Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Ping..
>
> There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
>
> Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
>
> Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
Ping..
There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
> On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes
> wrote:
>>> if (pm_power_off)
>>> pm_power_off();
>>> ## It really should do while (1) here.
>> while(1)
>> cpu_relax();
>> or similar at minimum.
Hi Alan, Pavel,
I prepared the changes suggested for
On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
wrote:
if (pm_power_off)
pm_power_off();
## It really should do while (1) here.
while(1)
cpu_relax();
or similar at minimum.
Hi Alan, Pavel,
I prepared the changes
Thanks Pavel and Alan for your comments!
I'll rework and try again.
Sebastian
On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> if (pm_power_off)
>> pm_power_off();
>> }
>>
>> ## It really should do while (1) here.
>
> while(1)
> cpu_relax();
>
> if (pm_power_off)
> pm_power_off();
> }
>
> ## It really should do while (1) here.
while(1)
cpu_relax();
or similar at minimum.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Hi!
> Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
> when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
> hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
>
> Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
> SYS_HALT) causes a
Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
SYS_HALT) causes a panic during
Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
SYS_HALT) causes a panic during
Hi!
Reboot logic in kernel/reboot will avoid calling kernel_power_off
when pm_power_off is null, and instead uses kernel_halt. Change
hibernate's power_down to follow the behavior in the reboot call.
Calling the notifier twice (once for SYS_POWER_OFF and again for
SYS_HALT) causes a panic
if (pm_power_off)
pm_power_off();
}
## It really should do while (1) here.
while(1)
cpu_relax();
or similar at minimum.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Thanks Pavel and Alan for your comments!
I'll rework and try again.
Sebastian
On 20 March 2014 14:35, One Thousand Gnomes gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
if (pm_power_off)
pm_power_off();
}
## It really should do while (1) here.
while(1)
28 matches
Mail list logo
