On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:15:43 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:28:52 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > struct dev_pm_info {
> > > > > pm_message_t power_state;
> > > > > unsigned int can_wakeup:1;
> > > > > @@ -561,6 +580,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > > > > bool is_late_suspended:1;
> > > > > bool early_init:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > > > > bool direct_complete:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > > > > + unsigned int driver_flags;
> > > >
> > > > Minor nit, u32 or u64?
> > >
> > > u32 I think, will update.
> > >
> > > BTW, there's a mess in this struct overall and I'd like all of the bit fileds
> > > to be the same type (and that shouldn't be bool IMO :-)).
> > >
> > > Do you prefer u32 or unsinged int?
> >
> > I always prefer an explicit size for variables, unless it's a "generic
> > loop" type thing. So I'll always say "u32" for this.
> >
> > And cleaning up the structure would be great, it's grown over time in
> > odd ways as you point out.
>
> OK, but that will be separate from this work.
Of course :)
