From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752596Ab1KWT6u (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:58:50 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:54711 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118Ab1KWT6s (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:58:48 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [PATCH 5] PM: Update comments describing device power management callbacks Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:01:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.1.0-rc10+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM list , LKML , Randy Dunlap , Ming Lei References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111232101.36188.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > The same data structure (dev_pm_ops) is used for both drivers and > > > > > subsystems. Therefore the comments should be directed toward both > > > > > driver writers and subsystem writers. > > > > > > > > I don't quite agree. Trying to do so would turn that comment into a lengthy > > > > document and there's no room for anything like that in the header file. > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > Perhaps I'll just modify the comment to say when the callbacks are executed > > > > without specifying what the specific callbacks are supposed to do (because > > > > that may vary from one subsystem to another and even between different > > > > drivers belonging to the same subsystem). If PM domains are taken into > > > > account, it gets even more complicated. > > > > > > Yes, a minimal description would be good, along with a pointer to the > > > Documentation/power files. > > > > Well, the one below is not exactly minimal, but I think it doesn't go too > > far at least. > > Yes, I like this version better. Great, thanks! Rafael