Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I see a test and call for .get_power() and .set_power(), but no actual
> implementations, so I think they can be removed as well, can't they?
> If so, I'll wait for that removal before applying this patch.
You are right. Both only have a check if exist the {g|s}et_power(), then this
is called.
But, as you already said, seems that really don't have a implementations for
both. So, I can work on remove this fields an tests this.
In the cpci_hotplug.h we can crate a `flags` field in `cpci_hp_controller_ops`
struct, in addition of remove the {g|s}et_power(). In the cpci_hotplug_core.c
that the cpci_hp_controller_ops struct is in use, maybe we can create a #define
SLOT_ENABLED 0x00000001, and we can do `ops->flags |= ENABLED_SLOT` when we
need enable the slot in the enable_slot() function and `ops->flags &=
~ENABLE_SLOT` in the disable_slot() function. In the get_power() function we
only need return `ops->flags & SLOT_ENABLED`.
what do you think?
> In
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241014131917.324667-1-trintaeoitogc@xxxxxxxxx,
> you capitalized your names. What's your preference? I'd like to use
> your name correctly and consistently.
I make mistake, sorry for this. In the next commit I will send with my name
capitalized.
