Messages in this thread | | | From | Peter Hüwe <> | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 3/4] tpm: Convert tpm_tis driver to use dev_pm_ops from legacy pm_ops | Date | Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:37:32 +0200 |
| |
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@sisk.pl> 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@sisk.pl>
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
| |