Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 07:24:00PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> >> Adding APIs to handle runtime power management on PHY
>> >> devices. PHY consumers may need to wake-up/suspend PHYs
>> >> when they work across autosuspend.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> include/linux/usb/phy.h | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> 1 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/phy.h b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> index 6b5978f..01bf9c1 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>> >> @@ -297,4 +297,145 @@ static inline const char *usb_phy_type_string(enum usb_phy_type type)
>> >> return "UNKNOWN PHY TYPE";
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >> +
>> >> +static inline void usb_phy_autopm_enable(struct usb_phy *x)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (!x || !x->dev) {
>> >> + dev_err(x->dev, "no PHY or attached device available\n");
>> >> + return;
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > wrong indentation, also, I'm not sure we should allow calls with NULL
>> > pointers. Perhaps a WARN() so we get API offenders early enough ?
>>
>> True, bad coding style :-(
>> We should be handling dev_err with a NULL pointer.
>> Will just keep here:
>> if (WARN_ON(!x->dev))
>> return .... ;
>
> right, but I guess:
>
> if (WARN(!x || !x->dev, "Invalid parameters\n"))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> would be better ??
Yea, better. Thanks
Will amend this accordingly.
--
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
