From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754273Ab3JJGHc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:07:32 -0400
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:5202 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752879Ab3JJGHa (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:07:30 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1069,1371106800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="408672305"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:12:56 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
        Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] spi: attach/detach SPI device to the ACPI power
 domain
Message-ID: <20131010061256.GB3521@intel.com>
References: <1381327461-10562-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <1381327461-10562-4-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20131009175528.GV21581@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131009175528.GV21581@sirena.org.uk>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:55:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:04:21PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > If the SPI device is enumerated from ACPI namespace (it has an ACPI handle)
> > it might have ACPI methods that needs to be called in order to transition
> > the device to different power states (such as _PSx).
> 
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>

Thanks!

> > +	if (ACPI_HANDLE(&spi->dev))
> > +		acpi_dev_pm_attach(&spi->dev, true);
> 
> Though I do wonder if it wouldn't be sensible to push the if () here
> inside acpi_dev_pm_attach() and similarly for _detach().  Terribly
> trivial either way.

Actually, the check is already there in acpi_dev_pm_attach()/detach(). The
above code follows what Rafael did for platform bus previously. I think the
idea is to have visual hint that this is only for ACPI enumerated devices.

If preferred, I can drop the if() checks, though.