From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751724AbdAaRrK (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:47:10 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:33126 "EHLO mail-wj0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbdAaRrC (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:47:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:46:58 +0100 From: Thierry Reding To: Pavel Machek Cc: Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Sebastian Reichel , Guenter Roeck , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] system-power: Add system power and restart framework Message-ID: <20170131174658.GA16896@ulmo.ba.sec> References: <20170130171506.3527-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20170130171506.3527-2-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20170130215301.GA18997@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170130215301.GA18997@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:53:01PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! >=20 >=20 > > +struct system_power_chip; > > + > > +struct system_power_ops { > > + int (*restart)(struct system_power_chip *chip, enum reboot_mode mode, > > + char *cmd); > > + int (*power_off_prepare)(struct system_power_chip *chip); > > + int (*power_off)(struct system_power_chip *chip); > > +}; > > + > > +struct system_power_chip { > > + const struct system_power_ops *ops; > > + struct list_head list; > > + struct device *dev; > > +}; >=20 > Is it useful to have two structures? AFAICT one would do. Yeah, one structure works fine. I was drawing inspiration from other subsystems that have a separate structure for these. I've merged the operations into the struct system_power_chip now because that gives us some more flexiblity, for example in cases where a chip can be a power controller and a reset controller, but sometimes we may want it to be only one of them. > Do we always have struct device * to work with? IMO we have nothing > suitable for example in the ACPI case. Would void * be more suitable? The struct device * was meant to be purely optional, but working with the code some more today and doing some more conversions, I've resorted to adding a separate field (const char *name) that takes precedence. So if a chip specifies both a .dev and .name field, then .name will be the user visible string, otherwise dev_name(.dev) will be used in messages. > Could you convert someting (acpi?) to the new framework as > demonstration? I had originally only converted architecture code to call into system power instead of the notifier chain and added a driver for a chip that I want to get this to work on. I've now converted a couple of other drivers from drivers/power/reset as well as ACPI. I've also added a very rudimentary prioritization mechanism that I've validated on the specific setup that I'm working on. On the Jetson TX1 that I'm testing this on, the SoC has a way of resetting itself. This has the advantage that some of the registers are kept intact over the reset, and this in turn is used to control early boot, so that specific recovery modes can be used. However, the board has to be powered off using the PMIC (via I2C). The patches achieve this by splitting up restart and power off into two steps, prepare and restart/power-off, as well as levels to prioritize. On Jetson TX1 the PMIC will be higher priority than the SoC (determined by the level) and therefore be able to override the SoC restart mechanism if we want to. If we don't we simply instruct the MAX77620 driver not to register the restart callback, in which case the SoC implementation will be used. I've uploaded all of it to a branch on github: https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/system-power It's rather lengthy, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to send to the lists right away. Thierry --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAliQzY8ACgkQ3SOs138+ s6Eegw//QvNlihEh42cBjnJOvSpAbVoq+vJllRgzhvzaQq/yt7q6UAFVGDu4HKdq +QLMi1eaFyWCk4CPe5xwSgjnx1MFevsNJ/kf0P1K2t3r1tLB/2itUplBgul87azk 1FqVGQV43Dk/w5Pias0o3okmU/YSaeAlsVrqm+xveJDVjZsKECPZ+gpCmRC15FlA BsvDr1/hcQjKQesJ1PlrQSpFA6t6yxvmQEYjcdbad3UXDw+mQsnm+/s+SzvTROeA QpIc3zgiLD7i4Rzu/kkmsxosb9q2x24eNQgx4VBXoXwGT8tOQyJ62sNvlz3dLn4k uXjJl+OLQmDveljd0wjBqum9OXfpRUbYXYD6UTHcI2U/mFo7fcUG5yQkYh6H3Ttm fNhUd4LbgMhDsqMplBCGCF52XtcWbNJHrij29MYwopPfuxii0f4+9mM6QDw3+Zyc 1m3QHfPNBaETGz7cXvnYLPAsW+drCEIXumEZ48mnlzP/QNLwkzogEIa0wHD7l97H XfnUNPXCrp6l+eVlvcQcn6b3SfWg6j1qhSHE5S1l+5jsOqkIdmI9yf0CH1rF6A0o K/fAfTOuLTxBzwzIvn/6z6c0VKRbPd0iJnuIIbn/mMRvKBbzJz5/3oI5uvgSlER1 jxa6iwg31WMImIekoKv24hKsZV0l7gHbjn4WlV2G0UjuXrydR8s= =FGLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--