On Monday, July 12, 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:07 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + > > > static DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_usage, 0444, rtpm_usagecount_show, > > > NULL); static DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_active_kids, 0444, > > > rtpm_children_show, NULL); static DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_status, 0444, > > > rtpm_status_show, NULL); +static DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_active_time, > > > 0444, rtpm_active_time_show, NULL); +static > > > DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_suspended_time, 0444, rtpm_suspended_time_show, > > > NULL); static DEVICE_ATTR(runtime_enabled, 0444, rtpm_enabled_show, > > > NULL); > > > > On a second thought, "active_time" and "suspended_time" should be > > sufficient (ie. the "runtime_" prefix is not really necessary). > > it's not necessary but it's consistent with the others... so yes > I can change it but then it's no longer consistent naming.. are you sure > you want this changed? No, you're right, sorry. But can you rebase your patch on top of linux-next, please, and move the definitions of the new attributes next to 'control' and 'runtime_status' (so that they don't depend on 'debug')? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
