On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:11:59PM +0000, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:16 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:35:36AM +0000, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote: > > > to register its own pm_power_off handler even if someone has registered > > > this handler earlier. > > > Useful to change a way to power off the system using DT files. > > > > Hi Oleksandr > > > > I'm not sure this is a good idea. What happens when there are two > > drivers using forced mode? You then get which ever is register last. > > Non deterministic behaviour. > > You're right, we have to handle a case when gpio-poweroff fails to > power the system off. Please look at the > 2nd version of the patchset. > > There are 3 only drivers that forcibly register its own pm_power_off > handler even if it has been registered before. > > drivers/firmware/efi/reboot.c - supports chained call of next > pm_power_off handler if its own handler fails. > > arch/x86/platform/iris/iris.c, drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_poweroff.c - > don't support calling of next pm_power_off handler. > Looks like these drivers should be fixed too. > > All other drivers don't change already initialized pm_power_off handler. > > > What is the other driver which is causing you problems? How is it > > getting probed? DT? > > There are several PMUs, RTCs, watchdogs that register their own pm_power_off. > Most of them, probably not all, are probed from DT. And which specific one is causing you problems. I don't like this forced parameter. No other driver is using it. Maybe we should change this driver to support chained pm_power_off handlers? Andrew
