On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
@@ -184,6 +179,8 @@ machine_halt(void)
void
machine_power_off(void)
{
+ do_kernel_poweroff();
+
poweroff -> power_off for consistency.
Dunno; matter of personal preference. I started with that, but ultimately went
with poweroff to distinguish poweroff handler functions from existing code,
specifically kernel_power_off().
Does anyone else have an opinion ?
index c4f50a3..1da27d1 100644
--- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c
+++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/reboot.c
@@ -106,6 +107,7 @@ void machine_halt(void)
__attribute__((weak))
void native_machine_power_off(void)
{
+ do_kernel_poweroff();
idle_with_irq_disabled();
}
So here we handle do_kernel_poweroff() returning,
diff --git a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c
index b78498e..eaafad0 100644
--- a/arch/cris/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/cris/kernel/process.c
@@ -60,6 +57,7 @@ void machine_halt(void)
void machine_power_off(void)
{
+ do_kernel_poweroff();
}
Here we don't.
diff --git a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c
index 5d40aeb77..a673725 100644
--- a/arch/frv/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/frv/kernel/process.c
@@ -107,6 +104,8 @@ void machine_power_off(void)
gdbstub_exit(0);
#endif
+ do_kernel_poweroff();
+
for (;;);
}
And here we do.
What is right?
Pavel
Up to the architecture maintainer to decide. My goal was to not change
existing behavior if no poweroff handler is registered.
Guenter