Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:02:17 +0100 (CET) | From | Guennadi Liakhovetski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active_wakeup() |
| |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 09, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, November 08, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > > > > > > > > > The current generic PM domains code requires that the same > > > > > .active_wakeup() device callback routine be used for all devices in > > > > > the given domain, which is inflexible and may not cover some specific > > > > > use cases. For this reason, make it possible to use device specific > > > > > .active_wakeup() callback routines by adding a corresponding callback > > > > > pointer to struct generic_pm_domain_data. To reduce code duplication > > > > > use struct gpd_dev_ops to represent PM domain device callbacks as > > > > > well as device-specific ones and add a macro for defining routines > > > > > that will execute those callbacks. > > > > > > > > > > Modify the shmobile's power domains code to allow drivers to use > > > > > their own .active_wakeup() callback routines. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c | 11 ++++--- > > > > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > > > > include/linux/pm_domain.h | 15 ++++------ > > > > > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Index: linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > > > > +++ linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > > > > @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ struct dev_power_governor { > > > > > bool (*power_down_ok)(struct dev_pm_domain *domain); > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > +struct gpd_dev_ops { > > > > > + int (*start)(struct device *dev); > > > > > + int (*stop)(struct device *dev); > > > > > + bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > > > > > +}; > > > > > + > > > > > struct generic_pm_domain { > > > > > struct dev_pm_domain domain; /* PM domain operations */ > > > > > struct list_head gpd_list_node; /* Node in the global PM domains list */ > > > > > @@ -45,9 +51,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain { > > > > > bool dev_irq_safe; /* Device callbacks are IRQ-safe */ > > > > > int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain); > > > > > int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain); > > > > > - int (*start_device)(struct device *dev); > > > > > - int (*stop_device)(struct device *dev); > > > > > - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > > > > > + struct gpd_dev_ops dev_ops; > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to merge patches 1 and 2? > > > > > > First, why would it? > > > > Because (1) AFAICS both these patches add new logically rather close to > > each other methods to the same existing API, > > Well, in fact .active_wakeup() was added for a totally different reason, > but I agree that now it _looks_ analogous. > > > and (2) it would reduce the > > total changed lines count and simplify reading of the patch(es), because > > your second patch moves around and modifies lines of code, that the first > > patch adds. > > Well, I can fold [2/7] into [1/7] if that helps.
IMHO that would look nicer, yes.
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
| |