On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2 January 2018 at 11:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c >>> >>>>> @@ -415,6 +402,18 @@ static int gpio_rcar_parse_dt(struct gpio_rcar_priv *p, unsigned int *npins) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >>>>> +static int gpio_rcar_suspend(struct device *dev) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct gpio_rcar_priv *p = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>>> + >>>>> + dev_pm_set_driver_flags(dev, p->wakeup_path ? DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH : 0); >>>> >>>> Why don't you simply set dev->power.wakeup_path here? >>> >>> That's what my v1 did (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10050995/). >> >> I very much prefer this one. :-) > > Okay! >> What's wrong with it? > > It works, although I would rather change the assignment of the flag to > respect if the current value is true, something like this: > > dev->power.wakeup_path = dev->power.wakeup_path || p->wakeup_path; dev->power.wakeup_path |= p->wakeup_path? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html