Re: [PATCH v3 22/24] firmware: xilinx: Add system shutdown API interface

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:47:30PM -0800, Jolly Shah wrote:
> From: Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Add system shutdown API interface which asks firmware to
> perform system shutdown/restart.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jolly Shah <jollys@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c     | 13 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h |  4 +++-
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c
> index f671b6b..d3f637b 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c
> @@ -834,6 +834,19 @@ int zynqmp_pm_set_requirement(const u32 node, const u32 capabilities,
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zynqmp_pm_set_requirement);
>  
>  /**
> + * zynqmp_pm_system_shutdown - PM call to request a system shutdown or restart
> + * @type:	Shutdown or restart? 0 for shutdown, 1 for restart
> + * @subtype:	Specifies which system should be restarted or shut down
> + *
> + * Return:	Returns status, either success or error+reason
> + */
> +int zynqmp_pm_system_shutdown(const u32 type, const u32 subtype)
> +{
> +	return zynqmp_pm_invoke_fn(PM_SYSTEM_SHUTDOWN, type, subtype,
> +				   0, 0, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +/**
>   * ggs_show - Show global general storage (ggs) sysfs attribute
>   * @device: Device structure
>   * @attr: Device attribute structure
> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h
> index 8ccaa39..13b9fdb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@
>  
>  enum pm_api_id {
>  	PM_GET_API_VERSION = 1,
> -	PM_REQUEST_NODE = 13,
> +	PM_SYSTEM_SHUTDOWN = 12,
> +	PM_REQUEST_NODE,

So you might have changed the value of PM_REQUEST_NODE, is that ok?

Why remove the explicit value?

thanks,

greg k-h