On 2013年01月07日 15:43, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2013 13:58:27 Alan Stern wrote:
>>> static int inline usb_device_prevent_power_off(struct usb_device *udev)
>>> {
>>> struct device *dev = usb_get_port_dev(udev);
>>>
>>> if(!dev)
>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> return pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>> }
>>>
>>> usb_get_port_dev() locates in the driver/usb/core/port.c and
>>> usb_device_allow/prevent_power_off() locate in the include/linux/usb.h.
>>
>> I was thinking more of something like this. In port.c:
>>
>> int usb_device_allow_prevent_power_off(struct usb_device *udev, bool allow)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>
> Please change the name. It looks like a contradiction in itself and would
> thereby almost beg for misuse.
>
Hi Oliver:
how about "usb_device_control_power_off(struct usb_device *udev, bool
enabled)"? I am not good at giving a name. So I'd like to see your
opinion.:)
> Regards
> Oliver
>
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
