Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx> writes: > On 11/10/22 11:00 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> 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. >> > > If you need the v8 anyway, then add support through sys-off in > that spin, should only be a couple lines of change. Oops, my mistake. I see v7 already has the dead code removed. I got confused because this thread is on v6. IMO, I think v7 should be merged v7 (mfd part is already ack'd by Lee) and then Jerome will follow up with the support for sys-off as an additional series. Kevin
