Rafael, Mark,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2011, mark gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:06:41PM +0200, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx>
>> >
>> > In preparation for the per-device constratins support, re-organize
>> > the data strctures:
>> > - add a struct pm_qos_constraints which contains the constraints
>> > related data
>> > - update struct pm_qos_object contents to the PM QoS internal object
>> > data. Add a pointer to struct pm_qos_constraints
>> > - update the internal code to use the new data structs.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/pm_qos.h | 19 ++++++++++
>> > kernel/power/qos.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>> > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_qos.h b/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> > index 6b0968f..9772311 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/pm_qos.h
>> > @@ -25,6 +25,25 @@ struct pm_qos_request {
>> > int pm_qos_class;
>> > };
>> >
>> > +enum pm_qos_type {
>> > + PM_QOS_UNITIALIZED,
>> what is this for?
>
> I seem to remember discussing that previously, but I can't recall what
> it's for. Jean?
>
Sorry it is a left over from the previous version, it has been used to
detect non initialized data structs.
It is still used to detect an error in pm_qos_get_value and so by its
callers pm_qos_update_target and pm_qos_power_read. I have to admit
the usefulness is quite limited.
Is the removal of PM_QOS_UNITIALIZED needed? I would say no.
Regards,
Jean
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
