Hi!
> Rename two functions and rearrange code in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> so that it's easier to follow. In particular, separate invocations
> of the legacy callbacks from the rest of the new callbacks' code.
>
> No functional changes should result from this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -504,17 +504,21 @@ static int pci_pm_suspend(struct device
> struct device_driver *drv = dev->driver;
> int error = 0;
>
> + if (pci_has_legacy_pm_support(pci_dev)) {
> + error = pci_legacy_suspend(dev, PMSG_SUSPEND);
> + goto Exit;
> + }
> +
> if (drv && drv->pm) {
> if (drv->pm->suspend) {
> error = drv->pm->suspend(dev);
> suspend_report_result(drv->pm->suspend, error);
> }
> - } else if (pci_has_legacy_pm_support(pci_dev)) {
> - error = pci_legacy_suspend(dev, PMSG_SUSPEND);
> } else {
> pci_pm_default_suspend(pci_dev);
> }
>
Does this mean that pci_has_legacy_pm_support() => !(drv && drv->pm) ?
Should pci_has_legacy_pm_support() check for that and WARN() in case
both sets of callbacks are set?
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
