Hi!
> I've made some revisions to my new power management API. I would
> appreciate any suggestions or comments.
> /*
> * pm.h - the Power Management Interface
> *
> */
>
> #ifndef _LINUX_PM_H
> #define _LINUX_PM_H
>
> #ifdef __KERNEL__
>
> #include <linux/config.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <asm/atomic.h>
>
> struct device;
>
> struct power_resource;
> struct power_driver;
> struct power_policy;
> struct power_device;
>
>
> /*
> * Global System Power States
> *
> * Reflect the status of the overall system.
> */
>
> struct system_power_state {
> unsigned int state;
We already have int system_state... How is this different?
Please move the defines near here, and preferably add type-checking
for sparse.
> unsigned int flags;
>
> struct list_head state_list;
> };
>
> extern int pm_register_system_state(struct system_power_state *state);
> extern void pm_unregister_system_state(struct system_power_state *state);
>
> extern struct system_power_state *
> pm_get_system_state_data(unsigned int state);
Having "unsigned int state" is asking for trouble.
> /*
> * Power States
> *
> * These are used to define device-specific power states.
> */
>
> struct power_state {
> char * name;
> int available;
>
> unsigned int state;
> unsigned int flags;
Are they same type as system_power_state.state? This should be clear,
and type-checked by sparse. Otherwise people will get it wrong.
> /*
> * Power Devices
> *
> * Power devices are the core building block of a system's power management
> * topology. They may require power resources, but the primary dependency
> * relationships are represented by a tree of "power devices". This tree
> * is based on a power domain (or container) model.
> */
>
> struct power_device {
> char * name;
> struct kobject kobj;
>
> unsigned int state;
> unsigned int min_state;
> unsigned int max_state;
Third "state"... Are they same type? Different?
Pavel
--
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.
