On 11/10/22 11:00 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:

jerome Neanne [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 09/11/2022 22:59, Andrew Davis wrote:

quoted

On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

quoted

Can you try an compile with W=1 please.

This raise one warning on mfd:
drivers/mfd/tps65219.c:28:12: warning: ‘tps65219_soft_shutdown’
defined but
not used [-Wunused-function]
     28 | static int tps65219_soft_shutdown(struct tps65219 *tps)
        |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
soft_shutdown has been validated and is used in TI baseline even if not
hooked in upstream version further to this review:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220825150224.826258-5-msp@baylibre.com/ (local)

It was a TI requirement to implement it...
Let me know if you want me to remove this function or if we can keep
it like
this.

There are platforms without psci, correct? I think the comment was to
drop the force override with system-power-controller property,

if (!pm_power_off) {
     tps65219_i2c_client = client;
     pm_power_off = &tps65219_pm_power_off;
}

Could still be valid for such platforms, no? I do see that the
capability that the PMIC has - which is software shutdown is a valid
feature that we support in many different PMIC drivers. Is'nt the job of
the driver to introduce the functionality in a manner that is
appropriate to the OS framework?

Yeah, I think Nishanth is right here.

We should probably keep the `if (!pm_power_off)` part so the PMIC will
be used if PSCI is not, but it also allows an easy way to test/use the
PMIC
shutdown functionality downstream if needed.

Then should be using the sys-off handler API[0] so it doesn't block PSCI
which is also switching over[1].

Andrew

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/894511/
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg1024127.html

Can we go for upstream with v7 without tps65219_soft_shutdown. Then if
everyone agrees with Andrew proposal, I'll submit a separate patch which
adds implementation of tps65219_soft_shutdown support through sys-off
handler.

So that we are not blocking upstream in case further
discussions/alignment are required.

Seems OK to me.  Nishanth?  Andrew?

But I think you'll need to at least submit a v8 without the unused
code/dead code that Lee pointed out.

If you need the v8 anyway, then add support through sys-off in
that spin, should only be a couple lines of change.

Andrew