Hi Peter, On 07/10/2013 05:30 PM, Peter Hüwe wrote: >> >> 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. > > For now, leaving tpm_tis_resume() is better to keep this change simpler. I am seeing this type of inconsistency in several drivers as I am going around making changes to convert from legacy pm_ops to dev_pm_ops. At some point, it might be worth while looking at the usage of these defines and set some clear guidelines. -- 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
