From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754821AbaDOSez (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:34:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:59747 "EHLO mail-wg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753244AbaDOSey (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:34:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1395348795-8554-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <1395348795-8554-2-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <20140320212336.GA17368@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <20140320213502.795a5d3c@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:34:52 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL From: Sebastian Capella To: One Thousand Gnomes Cc: Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Russell King , Ezequiel Garcia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 machine_power_off returning. Discussions available at the links below: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/25/554 -- linux-arm discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/649 -- linux-pm discussion Should I continue with the original hibernation patch from the linux-pm discussion? Does anyone have any response to Russel's commentsl? Thanks! Sebastian