From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756438Ab1KHUhY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:37:24 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:58051 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755043Ab1KHUhW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:37:22 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active_wakeup() Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:40:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.1.0-rc10+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM list , LKML , "Linux-sh list" , Magnus Damm , Kevin Hilman , jean.pihet@newoldbits.com References: <201111070101.33960.rjw@sisk.pl> <201111070106.52411.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111082140.00876.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, November 08, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > The current generic PM domains code requires that the same > > .active_wakeup() device callback routine be used for all devices in > > the given domain, which is inflexible and may not cover some specific > > use cases. For this reason, make it possible to use device specific > > .active_wakeup() callback routines by adding a corresponding callback > > pointer to struct generic_pm_domain_data. To reduce code duplication > > use struct gpd_dev_ops to represent PM domain device callbacks as > > well as device-specific ones and add a macro for defining routines > > that will execute those callbacks. > > > > Modify the shmobile's power domains code to allow drivers to use > > their own .active_wakeup() callback routines. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c | 11 ++++--- > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > include/linux/pm_domain.h | 15 ++++------ > > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > > > Index: linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > +++ linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h > > @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ struct dev_power_governor { > > bool (*power_down_ok)(struct dev_pm_domain *domain); > > }; > > > > +struct gpd_dev_ops { > > + int (*start)(struct device *dev); > > + int (*stop)(struct device *dev); > > + bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > > +}; > > + > > struct generic_pm_domain { > > struct dev_pm_domain domain; /* PM domain operations */ > > struct list_head gpd_list_node; /* Node in the global PM domains list */ > > @@ -45,9 +51,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain { > > bool dev_irq_safe; /* Device callbacks are IRQ-safe */ > > int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain); > > int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain); > > - int (*start_device)(struct device *dev); > > - int (*stop_device)(struct device *dev); > > - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > > + struct gpd_dev_ops dev_ops; > > Wouldn't it be better to merge patches 1 and 2? First, why would it? Second, why does it matter? Rafael