Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] serial: 8250_dw: Drop PM ifdeffery

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Paul Cercueil wrote:

> Hi Ilpo,
> 
> Le jeu., juin 30 2022 at 10:41:40 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen
> <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> a écrit :
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 
> > >  Drop CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP ifdeffery while converting
> > > dw8250_pm_ops
> > >  to use new PM macros.
> > > 
> > >  Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Not directily related to the patch itself but do you have any idea why
> > 1a3c7bb08826 ("PM: core: Add new *_PM_OPS macros, deprecate old ones")
> > didn't wrap RUNTIME_PM_OPS() pointers with pm_ptr()? I'm asking this
> > because in SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS() the callbacks are only created with
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PM so I'd have expected RUNTIME_PM_OPS() to maintain that
> > behavior but it didn't? Was it just an oversight that should be fixed?
> 
> The RUNTIME_PM_OPS() does not wrap pointers with pm_ptr(), because the pointer
> to the dev_pm_ops should only ever be used wrapped with pm_ptr() or
> pm_sleep_ptr().
> 
> Which is not done here.

Ok, thanks a lot for the explanation. It's really appreciated.

-- 
 i.

> Andy:
> The deference of dw8250_pm_ops should be pm_ptr(&dw8250_pm_ops). If you only
> had system suspend/resume functions, you'd use pm_sleep_ptr() there.