[PATCH 12/17] ARM: mvebu: Armada XP GP specific suspend/resume code

Dear Andrew Lunn,

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:59:39 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

Right. But for existing notifier chains, the existence, semantic and
meaning of the parameters are already defined, and the gazillions users
of that notifier chain in the kernel rely on those parameters to not
change.

That is not really true. Lets start off with:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/21/56

This is brand new code, implementing the poweroff handler call chain.
Take a look at do_kernel_power_off(). It passes a NULL pointer as the
parameter to the handler function. So there are not gazillions users
of that notifier chain in the kernel rely on those parameters to not
change.

Ok now I understand why I didn't see it. This code is not in mainline.
And actually, it doesn't seem to be close from hitting mainline when
reading the reaction of Rafael Wysocki on the main patch:

"""
Well, I must admit to having second thoughts regarding this particular
mechanism.  Namely, notifiers don't seem to be the best way of
expressing what's needed from the design standpoint.
"""

So I'm a bit reluctant to create a dependency of the Armada XP
suspend/resume code to a very large unmerged patch series that doesn't
seem to even be close of having a consensus amongst the maintainers.

Isn't this something we can rework afterwards once the poweroff
discussion has settled? I wouldn't mind declaring the particular
aspects of the DT bindings related to the PIC GPIOs as "staging", so
that we keep the freedom to change them for a few kernel releases until
we settle on the final solution for that.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com