On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:33:57PM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:58:18AM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > > SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS() are deprecated > > > > Not that I particularly care about SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS, but I'm not aware > > of it being deprecated. Has that been announced somewhere ? > > I was under the impression from [1], this is new style and old style going to be deprecated. > > If it is not the case, I would like to drop this patch. > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg691416.html I'm not against this change, I was just wondering about the status of SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS. If you think using RUNTIME_PM_OPS is better, I have no problem with that. The commit message should probably state that the latter is better, instead of saying that SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS is deprecated. > > > and require __maybe_unused > > > protection against unused function warnings. The usage of pm_ptr() and > > > RUNTIME_PM_OPS() allows the compiler to see the functions, thus > > > suppressing the warning. Thus drop the __maybe_unused markings. > > > > Have you tried to compile this with CONFIG_PM disabled, and confirmed the > > compiler doesn't generate any warning ? > > I am not able to compile with CONFIG_PM disabled as it is throwing errors in power management code. > > kernel/power/suspend.c: In function ‘suspend_prepare’: > kernel/power/suspend.c:360:10: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pm_notifier_call_chain_robust’; did you mean ‘raw_notifier_call_chain_robust’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 360 | error = pm_notifier_call_chain_robust(PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE, PM_POST_SUSPEND); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | raw_notifier_call_chain_robust > kernel/power/hibernate.c:325:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘save_processor_state’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 325 | save_processor_state(); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > kernel/power/suspend.c:372:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pm_notifier_call_chain’; did you mean ‘raw_notifier_call_chain’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 372 | pm_notifier_call_chain(PM_POST_SUSPEND); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | raw_notifier_call_chain > CC io_uring/timeout.o > kernel/power/suspend.c: In function ‘suspend_enter’: > kernel/power/suspend.c:405:10: error: implicit declaration of function ‘dpm_suspend_late’; did you mean ‘dpm_suspend_start’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 405 | error = dpm_suspend_late(PMSG_SUSPEND); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | dpm_suspend_start I'm surprised. Sakari, isn't !CONFIG_PM supposed to be supported ? > > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-csi2.c | 8 ++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-csi2.c > > > b/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-csi2.c > > > index d20f4eff93a4..c4609da9bf1a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-csi2.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-csi2.c > > > @@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ static void rzg2l_csi2_remove(struct platform_device > > *pdev) > > > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > > > } > > > > > > -static int __maybe_unused rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device > > > *dev) > > > +static int rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > { > > > struct rzg2l_csi2 *csi2 = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > > @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused > > rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > -static int __maybe_unused rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume(struct device > > > *dev) > > > +static int rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) > > > { > > > struct rzg2l_csi2 *csi2 = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused > > > rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) } > > > > > > static const struct dev_pm_ops rzg2l_csi2_pm_ops = { > > > - SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend, > > rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume, NULL) > > > + RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend, > > > +rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume, NULL) > > > > While at it, I would wrap the line to > > > > RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_suspend, > > rzg2l_csi2_pm_runtime_resume, NULL) > > > > Up to you. > > If it is not a requirement to move to use the modern pm_ops/pm_sleep_ops > then as said in the above I would like to drop this patch. > > > > }; > > > > > > static const struct of_device_id rzg2l_csi2_of_table[] = { @@ -865,7 > > > +865,7 @@ static struct platform_driver rzg2l_csi2_pdrv = { > > > .driver = { > > > .name = "rzg2l-csi2", > > > .of_match_table = rzg2l_csi2_of_table, > > > - .pm = &rzg2l_csi2_pm_ops, > > > + .pm = pm_ptr(&rzg2l_csi2_pm_ops), > > > }, > > > }; > > > -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
