On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:28:52 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > struct dev_pm_info {
> > > pm_message_t power_state;
> > > unsigned int can_wakeup:1;
> > > @@ -561,6 +580,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > > bool is_late_suspended:1;
> > > bool early_init:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > > bool direct_complete:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > > + unsigned int driver_flags;
> >
> > Minor nit, u32 or u64?
>
> u32 I think, will update.
>
> BTW, there's a mess in this struct overall and I'd like all of the bit fileds
> to be the same type (and that shouldn't be bool IMO :-)).
>
> Do you prefer u32 or unsinged int?
I always prefer an explicit size for variables, unless it's a "generic
loop" type thing. So I'll always say "u32" for this.
And cleaning up the structure would be great, it's grown over time in
odd ways as you point out.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
