On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2 January 2018 at 11:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
>>>
>>>>> @@ -415,6 +402,18 @@ static int gpio_rcar_parse_dt(struct gpio_rcar_priv *p, unsigned int *npins)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>>> +static int gpio_rcar_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct gpio_rcar_priv *p = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dev_pm_set_driver_flags(dev, p->wakeup_path ? DPM_FLAG_WAKEUP_PATH : 0);
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you simply set dev->power.wakeup_path here?
>>>
>>> That's what my v1 did (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10050995/).
>>
>> I very much prefer this one. :-)
>
> Okay!
>> What's wrong with it?
>
> It works, although I would rather change the assignment of the flag to
> respect if the current value is true, something like this:
>
> dev->power.wakeup_path = dev->power.wakeup_path || p->wakeup_path;
dev->power.wakeup_path |= p->wakeup_path?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
