Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101684-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:34:44 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Use SYSTEM_OFF2 PSCI call to power off
 for hibernate
Message-ID: <ZfHHlBgSNr8Qm22D@bogus>
References: <20240312135958.727765-1-dwmw2@infradead.org>
 <20240312135958.727765-3-dwmw2@infradead.org>
 <ZfB7c9ifUiZR6gy1@bogus>
 <520ce28050c29cca754493f0595d4a64d45796ee.camel@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <520ce28050c29cca754493f0595d4a64d45796ee.camel@infradead.org>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 04:36:05PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 15:57 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Looked briefly at register_sys_off_handler and it should be OK to call
> > it from psci_init_system_off2() below. Any particular reason for having
> > separate initcall to do this ? We can even eliminate the need for
> > psci_init_system_off2 if it can be called from there. What am I missing ?
>
> My first attempt did that. I don't think we can kmalloc that early:
>

That was was initial guess. But a quick hack on my setup and running it on
the FVP model didn't complain. I think either I messed up or something else
wrong, I must check on some h/w. Anyways sorry for the noise and thanks for
the response.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep