On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:15:43 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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. OK, but that will be separate from this work. Thanks, Rafael -- 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