I want to convert the axp20x PMIC poweroff handler to use the sys-off
API, so it can be used as a fallback for the SBI poweroff handler on
RISC-V. But the PSCI poweroff handler still uses pm_power_off, so done
alone, this conversion would cause the axp20x callback to be called
first, before the PSCI poweroff handler.
In order to prevent this change in behavior, the PSCI poweroff handler
needs to be converted to the sys-off API first, at a higher priority.
This series performs the conversion, after accounting for the fact that
the PSCI poweroff handler is registered quite early during boot.
The first patch is a dependency for both this series and the SBI
series[1], so I would like to get at least patch 1 merged soon.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Changes in v2:
- Update commit messages
Samuel Holland (2):
kernel/reboot: Use the static sys-off handler for any priority
firmware/psci: Switch to the sys-off handler API
drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 9 ++++++---
kernel/reboot.c | 10 ++++------
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--
2.37.4
On 1/1/23 21:17, Samuel Holland wrote:
> I want to convert the axp20x PMIC poweroff handler to use the sys-off
> API, so it can be used as a fallback for the SBI poweroff handler on
> RISC-V. But the PSCI poweroff handler still uses pm_power_off, so done
> alone, this conversion would cause the axp20x callback to be called
> first, before the PSCI poweroff handler.
>
> In order to prevent this change in behavior, the PSCI poweroff handler
> needs to be converted to the sys-off API first, at a higher priority.
>
> This series performs the conversion, after accounting for the fact that
> the PSCI poweroff handler is registered quite early during boot.
>
> The first patch is a dependency for both this series and the SBI
> series[1], so I would like to get at least patch 1 merged soon.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Update commit messages
>
> Samuel Holland (2):
> kernel/reboot: Use the static sys-off handler for any priority
> firmware/psci: Switch to the sys-off handler API
>
> drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 9 ++++++---
> kernel/reboot.c | 10 ++++------
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
Hello Rafael,
Do you think you will be able to pick up this series for 6.3? I'm going
to continue removing the pm_power_off from kernel, the new power-off API
feels stable now to me. I think the Samuel's improvement for the early
boot memory allocation will be good to have to avoid similar problem for
other drivers.
Ideally, the PSCI patch should get an ack, though the code change is
about the PM stuff, so perhaps will be fine to take it via PM tree if FW
maintainers will show no interest in the nearest time.
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
On 1/25/23 06:53, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 1/1/23 21:17, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> I want to convert the axp20x PMIC poweroff handler to use the sys-off
>> API, so it can be used as a fallback for the SBI poweroff handler on
>> RISC-V. But the PSCI poweroff handler still uses pm_power_off, so done
>> alone, this conversion would cause the axp20x callback to be called
>> first, before the PSCI poweroff handler.
>>
>> In order to prevent this change in behavior, the PSCI poweroff handler
>> needs to be converted to the sys-off API first, at a higher priority.
>>
>> This series performs the conversion, after accounting for the fact that
>> the PSCI poweroff handler is registered quite early during boot.
>>
>> The first patch is a dependency for both this series and the SBI
>> series[1], so I would like to get at least patch 1 merged soon.
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Update commit messages
>>
>> Samuel Holland (2):
>> kernel/reboot: Use the static sys-off handler for any priority
>> firmware/psci: Switch to the sys-off handler API
>>
>> drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 9 ++++++---
>> kernel/reboot.c | 10 ++++------
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Hello Rafael,
>
> Do you think you will be able to pick up this series for 6.3? I'm going
> to continue removing the pm_power_off from kernel, the new power-off API
> feels stable now to me. I think the Samuel's improvement for the early
> boot memory allocation will be good to have to avoid similar problem for
> other drivers.
>
> Ideally, the PSCI patch should get an ack, though the code change is
> about the PM stuff, so perhaps will be fine to take it via PM tree if FW
> maintainers will show no interest in the nearest time.
Additionally, a patch which depends on this[1] series has already been
merged[2], so if this series does not make 6.3, that change would need
to be reverted.
Regards,
Samuel
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
[2]: https://git.kernel.org/next/linux-next/c/a4755a1374ba