On 12/10/17 18:29, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 06:19:29PM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>> On 12/10/17 18:12, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:40:27PM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>>>> +static int img_mdc_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mdc_dma *mdma = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + return clk_prepare_enable(mdma->clk);
>>>> +}
>>> This one is same as...
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:40:26PM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>>>> +static int img_mdc_resume_early(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mdc_dma *mdma = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + return clk_prepare_enable(mdma->clk);
>>>> +}
>>> ... this one.
>>>
>>> why not use a same fn for both...
>> That is the img_mdc_resume_early() of patch 1/2. It changes in patch
>> 2/2 so is no longer the same:
> right, so why modify something you have added in previous patch, why cant
> this change come in same patch....
I considered system PM and runtime PM to be separate features so should
be in separate patches. I can squash them into one patch if you prefer?
--
Ed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
