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