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 ??
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
