Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:08:09 -0700 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm_ops |
| |
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:23:29PM +0100, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > [Removing linux-mips from CC - I don't know why they'd be interested in an x86 > only platform driver...] > > On Sunday 26 July 2009 14:53:33 Arnaud Faucher wrote: > > Gets rid of the following warning: > > Platform driver 'acer-wmi' needs updating - please use dev_pm_ops > > > > Take 2, thanks to Dmitry, Rafael and Frans for pointing out PM issue on > > hibernation when using dev_pm_ops blindly. > > > > This patch was tested against suspendand hibernation (Acer mail led > > status). > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Faucher <arnaud.faucher@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > index be2fd6f..29374bc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > @@ -1152,8 +1152,7 @@ static int acer_platform_remove(struct > > platform_device *device) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static int acer_platform_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, > > -pm_message_t state) > > +static int acer_platform_suspend(struct device *dev) > > { > > u32 value; > > struct acer_data *data = &interface->data; > > @@ -1174,7 +1173,7 @@ pm_message_t state) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static int acer_platform_resume(struct platform_device *device) > > +static int acer_platform_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct acer_data *data = &interface->data; > > > > @@ -1190,15 +1189,23 @@ static int acer_platform_resume(struct > > platform_device *device) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static struct dev_pm_ops acer_platform_pm_ops = { > > + .suspend = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .resume = acer_platform_resume, > > Are these necessary? For suspend-to-RAM, I've never needed these. The old > callbacks here were just for suspend-to-disk. >
That is not correct. Old suspend and resume callbacks were called for both S2R and S2D. Whether it is actually needed for S2R I don't know but looking at the code they should not hurt.
> > + .freeze = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .thaw = acer_platform_resume, > > If we only need these callbacks for freeze & thaw, they should be rebamed. > > > + .poweroff = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .restore = acer_platform_resume, > > What do poweroff and restore mean in this context. Do my comments above apply > again (i.e. are the callbacks necessary here)? >
I don't think poweroff handler is needed.
BTW, why so we retuen -ENOMEM from these methods if interface->data is missing? I'd say we should not fail suspend resume in that case or if we fail then with somethig like -EINVAL - we did not have mempry allocation failure.
-- Dmitry
| |