On 10/09/2014 03:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:

Hi!

quoted

@@ -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 ?

quoted

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,

quoted

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.

quoted

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