On Thursday, September 23, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > This patch (as1424) combines the various public entry points for the > runtime PM routines into three simple functions: one for idle, one for > suspend, and one for resume. A new bitflag specifies whether or not > to increment or decrement the usage_count field. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Index: usb-2.6/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > =================================================================== > --- usb-2.6.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > +++ usb-2.6/include/linux/pm_runtime.h > @@ -16,19 +16,17 @@ > #define RPM_ASYNC 0x01 /* Request is asynchronous */ > #define RPM_RETURN_IF_IN_PROGRESS 0x02 /* Don't wait for concurrent > state change */ > +#define RPM_GET_PUT 0x04 /* Increment/decrement the > + usage_count */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME > > extern struct workqueue_struct *pm_wq; > > -extern int pm_runtime_idle(struct device *dev); > -extern int pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev); > -extern int pm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev); > -extern int pm_request_idle(struct device *dev); > +extern int pm_runtime_idle_entry(struct device *dev, int rpmflags); > +extern int pm_runtime_suspend_entry(struct device *dev, int rpmflags); > +extern int pm_runtime_resume_entry(struct device *dev, int rpmflags); Hmm. Since you're renaming everything anyway, why not to give new names to the new merged routines in [4/7], like rpm_idle(), rpm_suspend(), rpm_resume() and call the new entry points __pm_runtime_idle(), __pm_runtime_suspen() and __pm_runtime_resume()? [I don't really like the _entry part.] That would match the general naming convention used in such cases. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
