On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 11:34:23 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 9:11 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Here we could use DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS() but that would have the
> > side effect of providing suspend and resume support. That would be
> > harmless but also of little purpose as this driver does very simplistic
> > power management with synchronous power up and down around individual
> > channel reads.
> >
> > In general these new PM macros avoid the need to mark functions
> > __maybe_unused, whilst still allowing the compiler to remove them
> > if they are unused.
>
> ...
>
> > static const struct dev_pm_ops rzg2l_adc_pm_ops = {
> > - SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzg2l_adc_pm_runtime_suspend,
> > - rzg2l_adc_pm_runtime_resume,
> > - NULL)
> > + RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzg2l_adc_pm_runtime_suspend,
> > + rzg2l_adc_pm_runtime_resume,
> > + NULL)
> > };
>
> DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS() ?
>
Disagreeing with the patch description argument on why I didn't do that?
The extra ops set will never have anything to do... Mostly harmless,
but kind of gives the wrong impression of what is going on in this
driver.
Jonathan
