[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160114112354.GA17869@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:23:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Keerthy <a0393675@...com>
Cc: Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
edubezval@...il.com, grygorii.strashko@...com, nm@...com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
joel@....id.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, peterz@...radead.org,
dyoung@...hat.com, josh@...htriplett.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reboot: Backup orderly_poweroff
* Keerthy <a0393675@...com> wrote:
> I tried to simulate the issue.
>
> In the probe function of drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-bandgap.c
> ti_bandgap_probe i call
>
> orderly_poweroff(true);
>
> This is while driver probes are still on going. I observe that
> ret = run_cmd(poweroff_cmd);
>
> ret is a non-zero value and we enter the if condition:
>
> Even after the
>
> emergency_sync();
> kernel_power_off();
>
> calls
>
> the console remained active in weird state.
Now _that_ is clearly an architecture bug that should not be papered over ...
If kernel_power_off() is called then the system should power off. No ifs and
whens.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists