From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753007AbaKJOJ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:09:27 -0500 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:58115 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752946AbaKJOJZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:09:25 -0500 Message-ID: <5460C70D.1000206@roeck-us.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:09:17 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Samuel Ortiz , Lee Jones , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/48] mfd: twl4030-power: Register with kernel power-off handler References: <1415292213-28652-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1415292213-28652-19-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141110084600.GA2582@amd> In-Reply-To: <20141110084600.GA2582@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-CTCH-PVer: 0000001 X-CTCH-Spam: Suspect X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.5460C715.0262,ss=2,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=2,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-Score: 0.001 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: C_4847, X-CTCH-SenderID: linux@roeck-us.net X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 5 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: mailgid no entry from get_relayhosts_entry X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/10/2014 12:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ twl4030_power_configure_resources(const struct twl4030_power_data *pdata) >> * After a successful execution, TWL shuts down the power to the SoC >> * and all peripherals connected to it. >> */ >> -void twl4030_power_off(void) >> +static void twl4030_power_off(struct power_off_handler_block *this) >> { >> int err; >> >> @@ -621,6 +621,11 @@ void twl4030_power_off(void) >> pr_err("TWL4030 Unable to power off\n"); >> } >> >> +static struct power_off_handler_block twl4030_power_off_hb = { >> + .handler = twl4030_power_off, >> + .priority = POWER_OFF_PRIORITY_LOW, >> +}; >> + >> static bool twl4030_power_use_poweroff(const struct twl4030_power_data *pdata, >> struct device_node *node) >> { >> @@ -839,7 +844,9 @@ static int twl4030_power_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> /* Board has to be wired properly to use this feature */ >> - if (twl4030_power_use_poweroff(pdata, node) && !pm_power_off) { >> + if (twl4030_power_use_poweroff(pdata, node)) { >> + int ret; >> + >> /* Default for SEQ_OFFSYNC is set, lets ensure this */ >> err = twl_i2c_read_u8(TWL_MODULE_PM_MASTER, &val, >> TWL4030_PM_MASTER_CFG_P123_TRANSITION); >> @@ -856,7 +863,11 @@ static int twl4030_power_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> } >> >> - pm_power_off = twl4030_power_off; >> + ret = devm_register_power_off_handler(&pdev->dev, >> + &twl4030_power_off_hb); >> + if (ret) >> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, >> + "Failed to register power-off handler\n"); >> } >> > > Could we get rid of the "struct power_off_handler_block" and guarantee > that register_power_off never fails (or print message from the > register_power_off...)? That way, your patch would be an cleanup. > > You could then add priorities if they turn out to be really > neccessary, later... Priorities are necessary. We had _that_ discussion before. Priorities solve the problem where multiple handlers are installed, either conditionally or unconditionally. If I take priorities away, a substantial part of the patch set's value gets lost, and I might as well drop it. Guenter