Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752168AbaB1IsM (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:48:12 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com ([209.85.216.178]:36646 "EHLO mail-qc0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751570AbaB1IsK (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:48:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140227234425.GA32426@kroah.com> References: <1393261707-30565-1-git-send-email-joshc@codeaurora.org> <1393261707-30565-4-git-send-email-joshc@codeaurora.org> <20140225183336.GH23275@saruman.home> <20140227190324.GC4421@kroah.com> <20140227234129.GA21032@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> <20140227234425.GA32426@kroah.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:48:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: phy: msm: use ASSIGN_*_PM_OPS variants From: Ulf Hansson To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: David Cohen , Felipe Balbi , Josh Cartwright , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28 February 2014 00:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:41:31PM -0800, David Cohen wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:03:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:33:36PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:08:27AM -0600, Josh Cartwright wrote: >> > > > Use ASSIGN_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS and ASSIGN_RUNTIME_PM_OPS in the >> > > > initializer for msm_otg_dev_pm_ops. Doing so allows us to eliminate >> > > > preprocessor conditionals around the specified callbacks. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c | 13 +++---------- >> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c >> > > > index 5b37b81..c04f2e3 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-msm-usb.c >> > > > @@ -414,8 +414,6 @@ static int msm_otg_reset(struct usb_phy *phy) >> > > > #define PHY_SUSPEND_TIMEOUT_USEC (500 * 1000) >> > > > #define PHY_RESUME_TIMEOUT_USEC (100 * 1000) >> > > > >> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM >> > > > - >> > > > #define USB_PHY_SUSP_DIG_VOL 500000 >> > > > static int msm_hsusb_config_vddcx(int high) >> > > > { >> > > > @@ -609,7 +607,6 @@ skip_phy_resume: >> > > > >> > > > return 0; >> > > > } >> > > > -#endif >> > > > >> > > > static void msm_otg_notify_charger(struct msm_otg *motg, unsigned mA) >> > > > { >> > > > @@ -1664,7 +1661,6 @@ static int msm_otg_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > > > return 0; >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME >> > > > static int msm_otg_runtime_idle(struct device *dev) >> > > > { >> > > > struct msm_otg *motg = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> > > > @@ -1699,9 +1695,7 @@ static int msm_otg_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) >> > > > dev_dbg(dev, "OTG runtime resume\n"); >> > > > return msm_otg_resume(motg); >> > > > } >> > > > -#endif >> > > > >> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >> > > > static int msm_otg_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) >> > > > { >> > > > struct msm_otg *motg = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> > > > @@ -1731,12 +1725,11 @@ static int msm_otg_pm_resume(struct device *dev) >> > > > >> > > > return 0; >> > > > } >> > > > -#endif >> > > > >> > > > static const struct dev_pm_ops msm_otg_dev_pm_ops = { >> > > > - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(msm_otg_pm_suspend, msm_otg_pm_resume) >> > > > - SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_otg_runtime_suspend, msm_otg_runtime_resume, >> > > > - msm_otg_runtime_idle) >> > > > + ASSIGN_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(msm_otg_pm_suspend, msm_otg_pm_resume) >> > > > + ASSIGN_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(msm_otg_runtime_suspend, msm_otg_runtime_resume, >> > > > + msm_otg_runtime_idle) >> > > >> > > if the patch introducing assign_if() gets accepted, I'm ok with this >> > > patch. >> > >> > I can't take that patch at this point in time, it's just too ugly... >> > >> > As are those crazy SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() macros, ick, who made those >> > things? >> > >> > What language are we trying to program in here people? >> >> Since we're discussing this topic here, I'd like point my RFC which gets >> rid of same ifdeffery in a different way: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/13/4 > > Again, why can't we just always define these fields in the structure, > then we don't need any crazy, complicated mess for assigning the > function pointers? > > Again, the odds that this config option is ever disabled in "real" > systems is so low these days, I have half a mind just to rip it out > entirely as the amount of work spent on compiler warnings and the like > in this area has proably offset any power savings the code was supposed > to save on systems :( Your point is certainly valid. I suppose the footprint of the kernel is nothing we should bother about? We have other solutions for that, right? Kind regards Ulf Hansson > > ick. > > greg k-h > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/