From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/arm: Initial support for PSCI-0.2 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: <1412259679.17146.22.camel@citrix.com> References: <1412193773-31042-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1412193773-31042-2-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1412193773-31042-2-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com Cc: julien.grall@linaro.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 15:02 -0500, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com wrote: > -int __init psci_init(void) > +void call_psci_system_off(void) > +{ > + if ( psci_ver > 2 ) Doesn't this need to be >= to do anything on a 0.2 system? (Likewise in the fn below) > + __invoke_psci_fn_smc(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0); Should we print a message in the case that we aren't able to call the 0.2 handler? (again, likewise below) > +} Ian.