From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from 2.6.31.1 to 2.6.31.2 - Dell Inspiron 600m Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:40:25 +0100 Message-ID: <200911021940.25111.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200911021439.28266.rjw@sisk.pl> <20091102173843.GA662@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091102173843.GA662-S7uyTPAaJ/sb6pqDj42GsMgv3T4z79SOrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Linus Torvalds , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jose Marino , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Monday 02 November 2009, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hey, > > just two minor nit-pick which we could handle post-2.6.32: > > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pcmcia/cs.c > > @@ -98,10 +98,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pcmcia_socket_list_rwsem); > > * These functions check for the appropriate struct pcmcia_soket arrays, > > * and pass them to the low-level functions pcmcia_{suspend,resume}_socket > > ... some documentation of the new functions, especially whether other socket > drivers should be updated? OK, I'll post a separate patch for that for .33. > > -static int socket_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt) > > +static void socket_start_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt) > > { > > - int ret; > > - > > - if (!(skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND)) > > - return -EBUSY; > > - > > skt->socket = dead_socket; > > skt->ops->init(skt); > > skt->ops->set_socket(skt, &skt->socket); > > + if (skt->state & SOCKET_PRESENT) > > + skt->resume_status = socket_setup(skt, resume_delay); > > +} > > > > +static int socket_early_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt) > > +{ > > + socket_start_resume(skt); > > + return 0; > > +} > > Why do we need to have two functions doing the same? Wouldn't > > static int socket_early_resume(...) > > suffice, with the only call to socket_start_resume() being replaced with > socket_early_resume()? Yes, it would. I'll do that in the final version of the patch. Thanks, Rafael