Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm_ops | From | Arnaud Faucher <> | Date | Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:28:48 -0400 |
| |
On dim, 2009-07-26 at 19:35 +0100, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > On Sunday 26 July 2009 19:08:09 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > 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. > > I'm aware they were called for S2RAM as well, but that was just a limitation > of the old calls - as I say, they're not needed for it (at least on my > hardware anyway). >
I was looking for similar functionality.
> > > > + .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.
After testing many combinations, I observed that I had to use that much callbacks. For example, when omitting to wire .poweroff/.restore, with .freeze/.thaw linked to suspend()/resume(), the state (of the mail led) is not restored correctly after S2D.
> > > > 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. > > Ok. > > -Carlos
| |