Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 2:41 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, at 21:46, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> index b487823f0e61..03dda47184d9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
> >> @@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ static int qcom_geni_serial_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int __maybe_unused qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> +static int qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >
> > Officially the removal of "__maybe_unused" could be a totally
> > different patch, right? SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() already eventually
> > used pm_sleep_ptr() even without your change, so the removal of these
> > tags is unrelated to the rest of your change, right?
>
> It's a little more complicated: SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() uses pm_sleep_ptr()
> to avoid the need for a __maybe_unused(). The depreacated
> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() is based on SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() these days,
> but still retains the old semantics of using an empty definition
> without CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so it still leaves the function unused as
> far as gcc is concerned.
>
> There could be an intermediate step of open-coding the
> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(), but that would result in the rather
> silly
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> .suspend = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
> .resume = qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume,
> .freeze = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
> .poweroff = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
> #endif
> .restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> .thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> }
>
> which makes no sense to me, as I think you either want
> all the members or none of them.
Ah, I guess I didn't trace through all the similarly named macros
quite correctly. ;-) Thanks for explaining.
> >> static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops = {
> >> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
> >> - qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume)
> >> - .restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> >> - .thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> >> + .suspend = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> >> + .resume = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume),
> >> + .freeze = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> >> + .poweroff = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> >> + .restore = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
> >> + .thaw = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
> >
> > Personally, the order you listed them is less intuitive than the order
> > that SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() lists functions. IMO it's better to
> > consistently alternate matching suspend/resume functions. ;-)
>
> Makes sense. I kept the order that we already had here, but
> I could redo this patch if anyone cares.
I wouldn't worry about it.
-Doug
