On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 7:02 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.
As per thread with Paul, this patch has no function change intentions,
but also, if tested on hardware, enabling system sleep states
shouldn't be harmful.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
