Rafael,
2011/7/31 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2011, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
>> @@ -113,6 +109,8 @@ void device_pm_remove(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> pr_debug("PM: Removing info for %s:%s\n",
>> dev->bus ? dev->bus->name : "No Bus", dev_name(dev));
>> + /* Call PM QoS to de-init the per-device latency constraints */
>> + pm_qos_dev_constraints_deinit(dev);
>
> I'd call this function "dev_pm_qos_constraints_destroy()" (and the previous
> one "dev_pm_qos_constraints_init()" for consistency).
Ok
...
>> +/* Called from the device PM subsystem at device init */
>> +void pm_qos_dev_constraints_init(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + plist_head_init(&dev->power.latency_constraints.list, &dev->power.lock);
>> + dev->power.latency_constraints.target_value =
>> + PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE;
>> + dev->power.latency_constraints.default_value =
>> + PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE;
>> + dev->power.latency_constraints.type = PM_QOS_MIN;
>> + dev->power.latency_constraints_init = 1;
>
> You could avoid adding this field if there were a PM_QOS_UNINITIALIZED
> (or PM_QOS_UNKNOWN) type.
>
> And if you _really_ want to have a separate field, why don't you put it
> into latency_constraints ?
Ok I remove latency_constraints_init and use the type field instead.
...
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
