On Wednesday 12 April 2017 09:35 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Keerthy, > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:09:36AM +0530, Keerthy wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 April 2017 08:50 AM, Zhang Rui wrote: >>> On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 08:19 +0530, Keerthy wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:59 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey, >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:00:20PM +0530, Keerthy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> off). > > <cut> > >>>>> OK... This seams to me, still a corner case supposed to be fixed at >>>>> orderly_power_off, not at thermal. But.. >>>>> > > ^^^ Then again, this must be fixed not at thermal core. And re-reading > the history of this thread, this seams to be really something broken at > OMAP/DRA7, as mentioned in previous messages. That is probably why you > are pushing for pm_power_off(), which seams to be the one that works for > you, pulling the plug correctly (DRA7). > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> However, there is no clean way of detecting such failure of >>>>>> userspace >>>>>> powering off the system. In such scenarios, it is necessary for a >>>>>> backup >>>>>> workqueue to be able to force a shutdown of the system when >>>>>> orderly >>>>>> shutdown is not successful after a configurable time period. >>>>>> >>>>> Given that system running hot is a thermal issue, I guess we care >>>>> more >>>>> on this matter then.. >>>> Yes! >>>> >>> I just read this thread again https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/802458 >>> 1/ to recall the previous discussion. >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8149891/ >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8149861/ >>> should be the solution made based on Ingo' suggestion, right? >>> >>> And to me, this sounds like the right direction to go, thermal does not >>> need a back up shutdown solution, it just needs a kernel function call >>> which guarantees the system can be shutdown/reboot immediately. >>> >>> is there any reason that patch 1/2 is not accepted? >> >> Zhang, >> >> http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,1400964 >> >> I got a NAK from Alan and was given this direction on a thermal_poweroff >> which is more or less what is done in this patch. >> > > > Actually, Alan's suggestion is more for you to define a > thermal_poweroff() that can be defined per architecture. > > Also, please, keep track of your patch versions and also do copy > everybody who has stated their opinion on previous discussions. These > patches must have Ingo, Alan, and RMK copied too. In this way we avoid > loosing track of what has been suggested and we also converge faster to > something everybody (or most of us) agree. Next version, please, fix > that. Sure. This was resurrected from last year. I will add the links to previous discussions. my bad. > > > To me, thermal core needs a function that simply powers off the system. > No timeouts, delayed works, backups, etc. Simple and straight. You mean replacing orderly_power_off during critical trip point cross over with a thermal specific thermal_poweroff function that ensures that hardware is indeed shut off? > > The idea of having a per architecture implementation, as per Alan's > suggestion, makes sense to me too. Having something different from > pm_power_off(), specific to thermal, might also give the opportunity to > save the power off reason. I did not get the 'save the power off reason' point. Care to explain more? > > BR, > > Eduardo Valentin > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
