From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751244AbVLLMM0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:12:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751246AbVLLMM0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:12:26 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:17307 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751244AbVLLMMZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:12:25 -0500 To: Paul Jackson Cc: akpm@osdl.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rth@twiddle.net, davej@redhat.com, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, ak@suse.de, ashok.raj@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] alpha build pm_power_off hack References: <20051211232428.18286.40968.sendpatchset@sam.engr.sgi.com> <20051211222404.d35f990c.pj@sgi.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:10:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20051211222404.d35f990c.pj@sgi.com> (Paul Jackson's message of "Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:24:04 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jackson writes: > Eric wrote: >> Taking a quick glance at alpha causes me to think we always >> want pm_power_off to be non null on alpha. > > So I presume you think that some alpha person should write > such a function? Sorry I had about 5 minutes to do something when this issue came up and unfortunately I knew how to solve it cleanly :( So I wrote the patch. It was my hope that by putting it into -mm I could sucker someone with some time into doing fixing the architectures that broke. I think what we want is one of the too patches below. Basically something that just sets pm_power_off to a non NULL value is enough to continue the alphas current behaviour. > I can't quite guess whether you are agreeing with my patch, > or disagreeing with it. Disagreeing in saying it didn't quite go far enough pm_power_off should be initialized on alpha. > At the very least, I don't want to leave the crosstools build > of alpha with a default config broken. That is a good point. But I really don't want to see a fix that just blindly fixes a build issue. When it takes about 10 minutes to audit machine_power_off and see what really needs to be done. To that extent I have hacked up your patch two different ways one of them should be usable. I'm just not certain which non-zero initializer I like better. The second setting pm_power_off to machine_power_off is what the powerpc port currently does. Eric --- arch/alpha/kernel/process.c | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+) --- 2.6.15-rc5-mm2.orig/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2005-12-11 15:07:52.000000000 -0800 +++ 2.6.15-rc5-mm2/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2005-12-11 15:09:33.000000000 -0800 @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ #include "proto.h" #include "pci_impl.h" +/* + * Power off function, alpha doesn't use but we should + * always call machine_power_off. + */ +void (*pm_power_off)(void) = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + void cpu_idle(void) { --- arch/alpha/kernel/process.c | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+) --- 2.6.15-rc5-mm2.orig/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2005-12-11 15:07:52.000000000 -0800 +++ 2.6.15-rc5-mm2/arch/alpha/kernel/process.c 2005-12-11 15:09:33.000000000 -0800 @@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ #include "proto.h" #include "pci_impl.h" +/* + * Power off function, alpha doesn't use but we should + * always call machine_power_off. + */ +void (*pm_power_off)(void) = machine_power_off; + void cpu_idle(void) {