> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pm- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 9:54 AM > To: Chen, Yu C > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; ACPI Devel Maling List; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux Kernel Mailing List; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Len Brown; Matt Fleming; Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; > Zhang, Rui > Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v3] ACPI / PM: Fix poweroff issue on HW-full > platforms without _S5 > > On Monday, March 07, 2016 03:53:13 PM Chen, Yu C wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > (resend for broken content) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > > Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:19 PM > > > To: Chen, Yu C > > > Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux Kernel Mailing List; > > > linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rafael J. Wysocki; Len Brown; Matt > > > Fleming; Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; Zhang, Rui > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v3] ACPI / PM: Fix poweroff issue on > > > HW-full platforms without _S5 > > > > > [cut] > > > > bool efi_poweroff_required(void) > > > > { > > > > - return !!acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware; > > > > + return acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware || (acpi_no_s5 && > > > > + !pm_power_off); > > > > > > What if CONFIG_ACPI is not set here? > > If CONFIG_ACPI is not set, this file would not be compiled, because > > CONFIG_EFI depends on CONFIG_ACPI. > > OK > > So the next question will be if efi_poweroff_required() is guaranteed to run > after all of the other code that may register alternative power off handling. Hum. unfortunately it is not guaranteed to run after all of the other code, because other components who register pm_power_off may be built as modules, and we can not predict/control the sequence registration. So this patch may break the EFI platforms who use non-efi poweroff due to unstable EFI service , not sure if there are any released-products of this kind. Currently I'm thinking of 3 possible solutions, could you please give some advices on them: 1. Introduce bootopt of 'poweroff=efi' Set the pm_power_off to efi_power_off no matter whether there is _S5 or not 2. Introduce /sys/power/poweroff Allow the user to choose which pm_power_off, for example: # cat /sys/power/poweroff *acpi acpi_power_off efi efi_power_off gpio gpio_poweroff_do_poweroff user can echo string to enable which one. And two APIs: register_power_off(char *name, power_off func) unregister_power_off(char *name) 3. replace all the codes of pm_power_off() with reliable_pm_power_off() void reliable_pm_power_off(void) { if (!pm_power_off) { if (acpi_no_s5) pm_power_off = efi_power_off; /* Other conditions added in the future. */ } pm_power_off(); } thanks, yu ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
