Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] dmaengine: shdma: add runtime- and system-level power management | From | "Koul, Vinod" <> | Date | Mon, 02 May 2011 15:35:47 +0530 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 11:53 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2011, Koul, Vinod wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 11:04 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 May 2011, Koul, Vinod wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 19:09 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > This patch extends and fixes runtime power management in the shdma > > > > > driver to support powering down the DMA controller and adds support > > > > > for system-level suspend and resume. > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +static int sh_dmae_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct sh_dmae_device *shdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > + > > > > > + return sh_dmae_rst(shdev); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM > > > > This should be removed... > > > > > > You mean, these functions just won't be called, but this way we save a > > > couple of bytes if PM is not set, don't we? > > I meant you dont need to have this, PM is usually part of core options > > which ppl enable nowadays. Do you run with PM disabled? > > I actually do, but maybe that's not a very important argument. So, if the > only difference is a couple of kilobytes in the kernel size, then maybe we > can just keep it always enabled. There are no other side-efects to it, > right? Yes, other driver currently do this...
-- ~Vinod
| |