[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADHgK6vkwjXyJxRcOXjJpJJaR0-YR869NpPZ+CBBS8kEdE0qCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:06:54 -0700
From: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sricharan R <r.sricharan@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk
On 19 March 2014 13:47, Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org> wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> index a5f702a..d96b910 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> @@ -594,7 +594,8 @@ static void power_down(void)
> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
> hibernation_platform_enter();
> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
> - kernel_power_off();
> + if (pm_power_off)
> + kernel_power_off();
> break;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> case HIBERNATION_SUSPEND:
>
>
> This follows the behavior in the reboot syscall which does it this way
> also. I'm testing this now, and it seems work fine. If this looks
> good, I can add it as an additional patch.
BTW, one thing I would point out is that kernel_power_off and
kernel_halt call the same notifier but with different parameters
(SYS_POWER_OFF and SYS_HALT).
If pm_power_down is null, I dont see why we'd want to notify
SYS_POWER_OFF before SYS_HALT. With the previous change I'm assuming
there's no benefit, so please chime in if you know a reason.
Thanks,
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists