Le lun., août 8 2022 at 11:39:56 +0200, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 11:35 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Le lun., août 8 2022 at 11:28:12 +0200, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 8:46 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
...
>> In this case we can't simply use DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS()
because
>> that would provide suspend and resume functions without the
>> checks the driver is doing before calling runtime_pm functions
>> (whether the necessary GPIO is provided). It may be possible to
>> clean that up in future by moving the checks into the callbacks.
>
> ...
>
>> static const struct dev_pm_ops srf04_pm_ops = {
>> - SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(srf04_pm_runtime_suspend,
>> - srf04_pm_runtime_resume, NULL)
>> + RUNTIME_PM_OPS(srf04_pm_runtime_suspend,
>> + srf04_pm_runtime_resume, NULL)
>> };
>
> static DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS(...);
>
> ?
Read the commit message?
Yes, and I'm not sure how that part is relevant. The callbacks won't
be called if pm_ptr() equals no-op, no?
Have a look at the definition of DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS(). I believe
it does not do what you think it does.
What the commit message says is that using DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS()
would add .suspend/.resume callbacks, which aren't provided with the
current code.
Cheers,
-Paul
