On 08/08/2022 12:28, Paul Cercueil wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Le lun., août 8 2022 at 12:11:02 +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >> On 07/08/2022 17:52, Paul Cercueil wrote: >>> Use the new DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() and pm_sleep_ptr() macros >>> to handle the .suspend/.resume callbacks. >>> >>> These macros allow the suspend and resume functions to be >>> automatically >>> dropped by the compiler when CONFIG_SUSPEND is disabled, without >>> having >>> to use #ifdef guards. >>> >>> The advantage is then that these functions are now always compiled >>> independently of any Kconfig option, and thanks to that bugs and >>> regressions are easier to catch. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The address does not work. Please don't add it to commit log. > > That's what get-maintainers gave me, and I didn't get any error sending > at that address. I know, I was bugging Bartlomiej and other Samsung folks to fix it and we reached some kind of conclusion but it never resulted in a patch. > But I'll take your word. > >>> Cc: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> This is also not really needed in commit log... it's just a mailing >> list... >> >> I actually never understood why people want to add to commit log, so >> to >> something which will last 10 years, Cc-ing other folks, instead of >> adding such tags after '---'. Imagine 10 years from now: >> >> 1. What's the point to be cced on this patch after 10 years instead of >> using maintainers file (the one in 10 years)? Why Cc-ing me in 10 >> years? >> If I am a maintainer of this driver in that time, I will be C-ced >> based >> on maintainers file. If I am not a maintainer in 10 years, why the >> heck >> cc-ing me based on some 10-year old commit? Just because I was a >> maintainer once, like 10 years ago? >> >> 2. Or why cc-ing such people when backporting to stable? >> >> It's quite a lot of unnecessary emails which many of us won't actually >> handle later... >> >> I sincerely admit I was once also adding such Cc-tags. But that time >> my >> employer was counting lines-of-patch (including commit log)... crazy, >> right? > > Yeah, well, I can add these tags after the '---' line. Nobody ever told > me that I was doing it wrong, and I see Cc: tags quite often in commit > messages, so I thought it was common practice. It indeed is a practice, which I do not understand. :) My complaining about it was just complaining, not as a feedback required to change. > >>> --- >>> drivers/mfd/sec-core.c | 7 +++---- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c b/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c >>> index 1fb29c45f5cf..a467de2b2fea 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/sec-core.c >>> @@ -455,7 +455,6 @@ static void sec_pmic_shutdown(struct i2c_client >>> *i2c) >>> regmap_update_bits(sec_pmic->regmap_pmic, reg, mask, 0); >>> } >>> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >>> static int sec_pmic_suspend(struct device *dev) >> >> Did you test W=1 with !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP? No warnings? > > I tested the PR with !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, correct. sec-core.o compiles > fine. No warnings with W=1. Ah, I see now. _DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS uses __maybe_unused for such case. Looks fine then. With dropped Bartlomiej Cc: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
