On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, at 21:46, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> index b487823f0e61..03dda47184d9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
>> @@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ static int qcom_geni_serial_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int __maybe_unused qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> +static int qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> Officially the removal of "__maybe_unused" could be a totally
> different patch, right? SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() already eventually
> used pm_sleep_ptr() even without your change, so the removal of these
> tags is unrelated to the rest of your change, right?
It's a little more complicated: SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() uses pm_sleep_ptr()
to avoid the need for a __maybe_unused(). The depreacated
SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() is based on SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() these days,
but still retains the old semantics of using an empty definition
without CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so it still leaves the function unused as
far as gcc is concerned.
There could be an intermediate step of open-coding the
SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(), but that would result in the rather
silly
static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops = {
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
.suspend = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
.resume = qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume,
.freeze = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
.poweroff = qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
#endif
.restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
.thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
}
which makes no sense to me, as I think you either want
all the members or none of them.
>> static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops = {
>> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
>> - qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume)
>> - .restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
>> - .thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
>> + .suspend = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
>> + .resume = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume),
>> + .freeze = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
>> + .poweroff = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
>> + .restore = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
>> + .thaw = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
>
> Personally, the order you listed them is less intuitive than the order
> that SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() lists functions. IMO it's better to
> consistently alternate matching suspend/resume functions. ;-)
Makes sense. I kept the order that we already had here, but
I could redo this patch if anyone cares.
> Both of those are nits, so I'm also fine with:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Arnd
