On 07/10/2013 04:43 PM, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your patch
>> static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = {
>> {"PNP0C31", 0}, /* TPM */
>> {"ATM1200", 0}, /* Atmel */
>> @@ -835,9 +834,12 @@ static struct pnp_driver tis_pnp_driver = {
>> .name = "tpm_tis",
>> .id_table = tpm_pnp_tbl,
>> .probe = tpm_tis_pnp_init,
>> - .suspend = tpm_tis_pnp_suspend,
>> - .resume = tpm_tis_pnp_resume,
>> .remove = tpm_tis_pnp_remove,
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> + .driver = {
>> + .pm = &tpm_tis_pm,
>> + },
>> +#endif
>> };
>
>
> I don't think the #if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is required here.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
tpm_tis_resume() is defined originally in CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope. I can
make the change to have tpm_tis_resume() not be in CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope
and remove this CONFIG_PM_SLEEP when defining .pm. That does make sense
looking at tpm_pm_suspend() and tpm_pm_resume() which are defined
without CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope. Sounds like the right approach? I will
redo the patch and send v2.
I find that the use of CONFIG_PM, CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, and CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
are not very consistent. :)
-- Shuah
Shuah Khan, Linux Kernel Developer - Open Source Group Samsung Research
America (Silicon Valley) shuah.kh@xxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 672-0658
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
