Hi!
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>
> PCI: Simplify PCI device PM code (rev. 4)
>
> If the offset of PCI device's PM capability in its configuration
> space, the mask of states that the device supports PME# from and the
> D1 and D2 support bits are cached in the corresponding
> struct pci_dev, the PCI device PM code can be simplified quite a bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> include/linux/pci.h | 8 ++-
> include/linux/pci_regs.h | 1
> 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pci/include/linux/pci.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pci.orig/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ linux-pci/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ struct pci_dev {
> pci_power_t current_state; /* Current operating state. In ACPI-speak,
> this is D0-D3, D0 being fully functional,
> and D3 being off. */
> + int pm_cap; /* PM capability offset in the
> + configuration space */
> + unsigned int pme_support:5; /* Bitmask of states from which PME#
> + can be generated */
> + unsigned int d1_support:1; /* Low power state D1 is supported */
> + unsigned int d2_support:1; /* Low power state D2 is supported */
> + unsigned int no_d1d2:1; /* Only allow D0 and D3 */
Uh, "D1", "D2", then "no D1D2" ?
> }
>
> - if (pmc & PCI_PM_CAP_PME_MASK) {
> + dev->pm_cap = pm;
> +
> + dev->d1_support = false;
> + dev->d2_support = false;
I thought d1_support is unsigned int, not bool?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
