Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753895AbZGZSIT (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:08:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753857AbZGZSIS (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:08:18 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.239]:24794 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753855AbZGZSIR (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:08:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=wmElwuVEnxUUG86/hpDm2G03eXN0hZgxqO5OgGxq/zc32azX0850WQKoymndXQ8Lsc 5i5jX6oIuY5OvP6TTmQILn5MndzKS/lA+iUEbHej9HbPUe92tKIkyfNqDJTj78XKruUn WWVCg+qr8dQuBdroDax82jK80c/4d/eEsZ4AA= Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:08:09 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Carlos Corbacho Cc: Arnaud Faucher , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Frans Pop , Manuel Lauss , Erik Ekman , Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm_ops Message-ID: <20090726180809.GA31396@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> References: <1248527091-18246-1-git-send-email-arnaud.faucher@gmail.com> <200907252204.44875.rjw@sisk.pl> <1248616413.3922.7.camel@green> <200907261523.30378.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907261523.30378.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3035 Lines: 88 On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:23:29PM +0100, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > [Removing linux-mips from CC - I don't know why they'd be interested in an x86 > only platform driver...] > > On Sunday 26 July 2009 14:53:33 Arnaud Faucher wrote: > > Gets rid of the following warning: > > Platform driver 'acer-wmi' needs updating - please use dev_pm_ops > > > > Take 2, thanks to Dmitry, Rafael and Frans for pointing out PM issue on > > hibernation when using dev_pm_ops blindly. > > > > This patch was tested against suspendand hibernation (Acer mail led > > status). > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Faucher > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > index be2fd6f..29374bc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c > > @@ -1152,8 +1152,7 @@ static int acer_platform_remove(struct > > platform_device *device) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static int acer_platform_suspend(struct platform_device *dev, > > -pm_message_t state) > > +static int acer_platform_suspend(struct device *dev) > > { > > u32 value; > > struct acer_data *data = &interface->data; > > @@ -1174,7 +1173,7 @@ pm_message_t state) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static int acer_platform_resume(struct platform_device *device) > > +static int acer_platform_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct acer_data *data = &interface->data; > > > > @@ -1190,15 +1189,23 @@ static int acer_platform_resume(struct > > platform_device *device) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static struct dev_pm_ops acer_platform_pm_ops = { > > + .suspend = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .resume = acer_platform_resume, > > Are these necessary? For suspend-to-RAM, I've never needed these. The old > callbacks here were just for suspend-to-disk. > That is not correct. Old suspend and resume callbacks were called for both S2R and S2D. Whether it is actually needed for S2R I don't know but looking at the code they should not hurt. > > + .freeze = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .thaw = acer_platform_resume, > > If we only need these callbacks for freeze & thaw, they should be rebamed. > > > + .poweroff = acer_platform_suspend, > > + .restore = acer_platform_resume, > > What do poweroff and restore mean in this context. Do my comments above apply > again (i.e. are the callbacks necessary here)? > I don't think poweroff handler is needed. BTW, why so we retuen -ENOMEM from these methods if interface->data is missing? I'd say we should not fail suspend resume in that case or if we fail then with somethig like -EINVAL - we did not have mempry allocation failure. -- Dmitry -- 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/