Hi Shuah,
thanks for your reply.
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> + .driver = {
> >> + .pm = &tpm_tis_pm,
> >> + },
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> };
> >
> > I don't think the #if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is required here.
In this case, the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro handles the case internally - i.e.
no matter whether CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is set or not, the correct structure is set
up and thus no ifdef needed.
>
> 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 ithout CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope. Sounds like the right approach?
> I will redo the patch and send v2.
Hmm,
at first I thought that would be a good idea, however scrolling to the git
history I found:
commit 07368d32f1a67e797def08cf2ee3ea1647b204b6
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Aug 9 23:00:35 2012 +0200
tpm_tis / PM: Fix unused function warning for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
According to a compiler warning, the tpm_tis_resume() function is not
used for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset, so add a #ifdef to prevent it from
being built in that case.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
So removing it there would effectively revert the patch and re-enable the
warning.
> I find that the use of CONFIG_PM, CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, and CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> are not very consistent. :)
Yes.
Maybe the better idea is to add the correct CONFIG_PM ifdefs for all code
paths related to PM.
Or leave the CONFIG_PM for tpm_tis_resume as it is.
Thanks,
Peter
--
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
