From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Cohen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: phy: msm: use ASSIGN_*_PM_OPS variants Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:52:43 -0800 Message-ID: <20140227235243.GC21032@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> References: <1393261707-30565-1-git-send-email-joshc@codeaurora.org> <1393261707-30565-4-git-send-email-joshc@codeaurora.org> <20140225183336.GH23275@saruman.home> <20140227190324.GC4421@kroah.com> <20140227234129.GA21032@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> <20140227234425.GA32426@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140227234425.GA32426-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Felipe Balbi , Josh Cartwright , linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:41:31PM -0800, David Cohen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:03:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:33:36PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:08:27AM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > > > > Use ASSIGN_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS and ASSIGN_RUNTIME_PM_OPS in the > > > > > initializer for msm_otg_dev_pm_ops. Doing so allows us to eliminate > > > > > preprocessor conditionals around the specified callbacks. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c | 13 +++---------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c > > > > > index 5b37b81..c04f2e3 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c > > > > > @@ -414,8 +414,6 @@ static int msm_otg_reset(struct usb_phy *phy) > > > > > #define PHY_SUSPEND_TIMEOUT_USEC (500 * 1000) > > > > > #define PHY_RESUME_TIMEOUT_USEC (100 * 1000) > > > > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM > > > > > - > > > > > #define USB_PHY_SUSP_DIG_VOL 500000 > > > > > static int msm_hsusb_config_vddcx(int high) > > > > > { > > > > > @@ -609,7 +607,6 @@ skip_phy_resume: > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > -#endif > > > > > > > > > > static void msm_otg_notify_charger(struct msm_otg *motg, unsigned mA) > > > > > { > > > > > @@ -1664,7 +1661,6 @@ static int msm_otg_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME > > > > > static int msm_otg_runtime_idle(struct device *dev) > > > > > { > > > > > struct msm_otg *motg = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > @@ -1699,9 +1695,7 @@ static int msm_otg_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) > > > > > dev_dbg(dev, "OTG runtime resume\n"); > > > > > return msm_otg_resume(motg); > > > > > } > > > > > -#endif > > > > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > > > > static int msm_otg_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > > > { > > > > > struct msm_otg *motg = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > > @@ -1731,12 +1725,11 @@ static int msm_otg_pm_resume(struct device *dev) > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > -#endif > > > > > > > > > > static const struct dev_pm_ops msm_otg_dev_pm_ops = { > > > > > - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(msm_otg_pm_suspend, msm_otg_pm_resume) > > > > > - SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_otg_runtime_suspend, msm_otg_runtime_resume, > > > > > - msm_otg_runtime_idle) > > > > > + ASSIGN_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(msm_otg_pm_suspend, msm_otg_pm_resume) > > > > > + ASSIGN_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_otg_runtime_suspend, msm_otg_runtime_resume, > > > > > + msm_otg_runtime_idle) > > > > > > > > if the patch introducing assign_if() gets accepted, I'm ok with this > > > > patch. > > > > > > I can't take that patch at this point in time, it's just too ugly... > > > > > > As are those crazy SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() macros, ick, who made those > > > things? > > > > > > What language are we trying to program in here people? > > > > Since we're discussing this topic here, I'd like point my RFC which gets > > rid of same ifdeffery in a different way: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/13/4 > > Again, why can't we just always define these fields in the structure, > then we don't need any crazy, complicated mess for assigning the > function pointers? > > Again, the odds that this config option is ever disabled in "real" > systems is so low these days, I have half a mind just to rip it out > entirely as the amount of work spent on compiler warnings and the like > in this area has proably offset any power savings the code was supposed > to save on systems :( That makes sense :) Thanks for your feedback. BR, David > > ick. > > greg k-h > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in > the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html