Re: [PATCH] PM: Introduce CALL_PM_OP macro to reduce code duplication

[Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>]

On Oct 13, 2025 at 20:56:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:46 PM Kaushlendra Kumar
> <kaushlendra.kumar@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add CALL_PM_OP macro to eliminate repetitive code patterns in power
> > management generic operations. Replace identical driver PM callback
> > invocation logic across all pm_generic_* functions with a single
> > macro that handles the NULL pointer checks and function calls.
> >
> > This reduces code duplication significantly while maintaining the
> > same functionality and improving code maintainability.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kaushlendra Kumar <kaushlendra.kumar@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/power/generic_ops.c | 85 ++++++++++----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/generic_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/generic_ops.c
> > index 6502720bb564..c4fc802b8c65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/generic_ops.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/generic_ops.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
> >  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >  #include <linux/export.h>
> >
> > +#define CALL_PM_OP(dev, op) \
> > +({ \
> > +struct device *_dev = (dev); \
> > +const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = _dev->driver ? _dev->driver->pm : NULL; \
> > +pm && pm->op ? pm->op(_dev) : 0; \
> > +})
> 
> Why don't you include the function signature and symbol export into the macro?
> 

As discussed in the [v2] I am more inclined toward this v1
implementation.

So for v1:
Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

[v2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/CAJZ5v0iHcvXHdMfdakd5TUgcAiOGFW8hbvb2k-xb92dz81cGhA@mail.gmail.com

-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole
Texas Instruments Incorporated