16.02.2022 23:30, Helge Deller пишет: > On 2/16/22 13:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:00 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 31.01.2022 02:36, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: >>>> Problem >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> SoC devices require power-off call chaining functionality from kernel. >>>> We have a widely used restart chaining provided by restart notifier API, >>>> but nothing for power-off. >>>> >>>> Solution >>>> -------- >>>> >>>> Introduce new API that provides both restart and power-off call chains. >>>> >>>> Why combine restart with power-off? Because drivers often do both. >>>> More practical to have API that provides both under the same roof. >>>> >>>> The new API is designed with simplicity and extensibility in mind. >>>> It's built upon the existing restart and reboot APIs. The simplicity >>>> is in new helper functions that are convenient for drivers. The >>>> extensibility is in the design that doesn't hardcode callback >>>> arguments, making easy to add new parameters and remove old. >>>> >>>> This is a third attempt to introduce the new API. First was made by >>>> Guenter Roeck back in 2014, second was made by Thierry Reding in 2017. >>>> In fact the work didn't stop and recently arm_pm_restart() was removed >>>> from v5.14 kernel, which was a part of preparatory work started by >>>> Guenter Roeck. I took into account experience and ideas from the >>>> previous attempts, extended and polished them. >>> >>> >>> Rafael and all, do you see anything critical that needs to be improved >>> in this v6? >>> >>> Will be great if you could take this patchset via the power tree if it >>> looks okay, or give an ack. >> >> I need some more time for this, sorry. No worries, we're not in a rush. >> I'm a bit concerned about seeing no response to this set from anyone. >> >> It looks like multiple platforms may be affected by it in principle, >> so doesn't anyone care? The platforms that didn't provide ack so far are: SH, x86, IA64, MIPS and NDS32. At least x86 and MIPS are alive, not sure why maintainers didn't bother to answer yet. > I did looked into the whole patch set after applying it locally. > > While I agree a new combined API is good, and the beginning looked promising, > after some time I started to ask myself if the whole infrastructure might > be a little overdesigned. > > Anyway, I tested it and it works for me on parisc. > And it's probably better than what we have today. Thank you!
