Re: [PATCH 04/11] pwm: brcmstb: Use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS for PM functions

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2231 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 06:48:10PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:42:54AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/11/2023 8:31 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 12:21:52PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:51:05 +0200
> > > > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > This macro has the advantage over SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS that we don't have to
> > > > > care about when the functions are actually used, so the corresponding
> > > > > #ifdef can be dropped.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also make use of pm_ptr() to discard all PM related stuff if CONFIG_PM
> > > > > isn't enabled.
> > > > 
> > > > The additional change to potentially return an error when not doing so before
> > > > wants to be called out in the description.
> > > 
> > > Indeed, good catch. Something like:
> > > 
> > > 	pwm: brcmstb: Use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS for PM
> > > 
> > > 	This macro has the advantage over SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS that we don't have to
> > > 	care about when the functions are actually used, so the corresponding
> > > 	#ifdef can be dropped.
> > > 
> > > 	Also make use of pm_ptr() to discard all PM related stuff if CONFIG_PM
> > > 	isn't enabled.
> > > 
> > > 	While touching brcmstb_pwm_suspend() also propagate the return
> > > 	value of clk_enable() to the caller of .suspend().
> > > 
> > > 	Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > 
> > > I fixed that in my tree, so if and when v2 happens, this comment will be
> > > addressed.
> > 
> > OK so that makes:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231005164728.1846726-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com/
> > 
> > void, and now I also need to re-submit:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231004175414.1738475-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com/
> > 
> > or is Thierry going to resolve that conflict for us?
> 
> Oh right, I remember.
> 
> @Thierry: Please drop my patch and take Florian's instead. I mark my
> patch as rejected.

This series doesn't apply anymore anyway, so can you please rebase this
on top of the PWM for-next branch and resend the series?

Thanks,
Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]