Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mfd: tps65219: Add driver for TI TPS65219 PMIC

[Andrew Davis]

On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > 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