On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 10:46:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, July 08, 2012, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 09:48:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > > Make the Exynos4 TMU driver define its PM callbacks through
> > > a struct dev_pm_ops object rather than by using legacy PM hooks
> > > in struct platform_driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/hwmon/exynos4_tmu.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux/drivers/hwmon/exynos4_tmu.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux.orig/drivers/hwmon/exynos4_tmu.c
> > > +++ linux/drivers/hwmon/exynos4_tmu.c
> > > @@ -476,34 +476,38 @@ static int __devexit exynos4_tmu_remove(
> > > }
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > > -static int exynos4_tmu_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> > > +static int exynos4_tmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > - exynos4_tmu_control(pdev, false);
> > > + exynos4_tmu_control(to_platform_device(dev), false);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int exynos4_tmu_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +static int exynos4_tmu_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > > +
> > > exynos4_tmu_initialize(pdev);
> > > exynos4_tmu_control(pdev, true);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(exynos4_tmu_pm,
> > > + exynos4_tmu_suspend, exynos4_tmu_resume);
> > > +#define EXYNOS4_TMU_PM (&exynos4_tmu_pm)
> > > #else
> > > -#define exynos4_tmu_suspend NULL
> > > -#define exynos4_tmu_resume NULL
> > > +#define EXYNOS4_TMU_PM NULL
> > > #endif
> >
> > Actually, looking into other drivers, the common approach seems to be to declare
> >
> > static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(exynos4_tmu_pm,
> > exynos4_tmu_suspend, exynos4_tmu_resume);
> >
> > outside the #ifdef code and then just assign
> >
> > .pm = &exynos4_tmu_pm;
> >
> > unconditionally.
> >
> > That seems to be a much simpler solution. Any special reason for not
> > implementing it this way ? Same question applies to the other patches in the
> > series.
>
> In fact, there are two ways. One of them is what you said, the other is to
> put SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() under the #ifdef like I did. I'm not sure which one
> is prevalent, but what I did has the advatnage that the kernel data will
> be slightly smaller if CONFIG_PM is unset.
>
Ok, make sense. Applied to -next.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
