jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 09/11/2022 22:59, Andrew Davis wrote: >> On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote: >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you try an compile with W=1 please. >>>>> This raise one warning on mfd: >>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65219.c:28:12: warning: ‘tps65219_soft_shutdown’ >>>>> defined but >>>>> not used [-Wunused-function] >>>>> 28 | static int tps65219_soft_shutdown(struct tps65219 *tps) >>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> soft_shutdown has been validated and is used in TI baseline even if not >>>>> hooked in upstream version further to this review: >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220825150224.826258-5-msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>> >>>>> It was a TI requirement to implement it... >>>>> Let me know if you want me to remove this function or if we can keep >>>>> it like >>>>> this. >>>> >>>> There are platforms without psci, correct? I think the comment was to >>>> drop the force override with system-power-controller property, >>>> >>>> if (!pm_power_off) { >>>> tps65219_i2c_client = client; >>>> pm_power_off = &tps65219_pm_power_off; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Could still be valid for such platforms, no? I do see that the >>>> capability that the PMIC has - which is software shutdown is a valid >>>> feature that we support in many different PMIC drivers. Is'nt the job of >>>> the driver to introduce the functionality in a manner that is >>>> appropriate to the OS framework? >>> >>> Yeah, I think Nishanth is right here. >>> >>> We should probably keep the `if (!pm_power_off)` part so the PMIC will >>> be used if PSCI is not, but it also allows an easy way to test/use the >>> PMIC >>> shutdown functionality downstream if needed. >>> >> >> Then should be using the sys-off handler API[0] so it doesn't block PSCI >> which is also switching over[1]. >> >> Andrew >> >> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/894511/ >> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg1024127.html > Can we go for upstream with v7 without tps65219_soft_shutdown. Then if > everyone agrees with Andrew proposal, I'll submit a separate patch which > adds implementation of tps65219_soft_shutdown support through sys-off > handler. > > So that we are not blocking upstream in case further > discussions/alignment are required. Seems OK to me. Nishanth? Andrew? But I think you'll need to at least submit a v8 without the unused code/dead code that Lee pointed out. Kevin
