Hi Jingoo,
On 03/17/2014 09:17 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
> On Friday, March 14, 2014 6:30 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>
>> This patch use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS macro instead of legacy method.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c b/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c
>> index 60539e8..e5d2c5a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c
>> @@ -1247,6 +1247,7 @@ static int exynos4_busfreq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> static int exynos4_busfreq_resume(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> struct busfreq_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> @@ -1254,9 +1255,10 @@ static int exynos4_busfreq_resume(struct device *dev)
>> busfreq_mon_reset(data);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +#endif
>>
>> static const struct dev_pm_ops exynos4_busfreq_pm = {
>> - .resume = exynos4_busfreq_resume,
>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(NULL, exynos4_busfreq_resume)
>
> Hi Chanwoo Choi,
>
> How about using SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS instead of SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS?
> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS is simpler as below.
>
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(exynos4_busfreq_pm, NULL, exynos4_busfreq_resume);
>
> However, if runtime pm functions will be added later,
> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS is not necessary.
>
OK, I'll use SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS on next patchset.
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
