On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx> wrote: > > There exists device_set_wakeup_enable for wrapping device_wakeup_enable > and device_wakeup_disable. Use that instead to avoid confusion in > returning from a void vs int function. > > Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx> > --- > > I do not have the hardware to test out this driver, hence requesting > someone to review/ test it if atall you suspect that this change can > break existing functionality. > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c > index 025b31aa712c..db614389a5fc 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c > @@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ static int sdhci_pci_init_wakeup(struct sdhci_pci_chip *chip) > } > > if ((pm_flags & MMC_PM_KEEP_POWER) && (pm_flags & MMC_PM_WAKE_SDIO_IRQ)) > - return device_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev); > + return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, true); This change is not necessary. > else if (!cap_cd_wake) > - return device_wakeup_disable(&chip->pdev->dev); > + return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, false); It would be sufficient to simply drop the return statement from here, that is + device_wakeup_disable(&chip->pdev->dev); and it can be done in the first patch (which would be less confusing even IMO). > > return 0; > } > --
