On 01/05/2012 09:49 PM, Christopher Heiny wrote: > On 01/01/2012 10:38 PM, Shubhrajyoti wrote: >> Hi Christopher, >> >> On Thursday 22 December 2011 07:39 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny<cheiny@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> > [snip] > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM >>> +static int rmi_bus_suspend(struct device *dev) >>> +{ >>> +#ifdef GENERIC_SUBSYS_PM_OPS >>> + const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL; >>> + >>> + if (pm&& pm->suspend) >>> + return pm->suspend(dev); >> If driver-pm- suspend is not there should you not fall back to . >> suspend ? > > You're thinking of dev->driver->suspend here, right? If so, that sounds > good to me. > This will add a ambiguity as to how to specify to suspend/resume callbacks. Just use generic_subsys_pm_ops for your bus' pm ops. It should work and will also allow drivers to implement other pm callbacks than just suspend and resume. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html