Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:37169 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752384AbaJMIBe (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:01:34 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Michal Kazior CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ath10k: replace power up/down with reset callback References: <1412842950-14098-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1412842950-14098-6-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:01:07 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1412842950-14098-6-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> (Michal Kazior's message of "Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:22:30 +0200") Message-ID: <87fves9z5o.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20141013_100137_929376_DBEE06DB) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michal Kazior writes: > The power up/down didn't make much sense any more > since hif_stop already stops the device > compeletely. The target lifecycle was never symmetric > so don't bother trying to make it look like it is > and expose a reset hif callback instead of power > up/down callbacks. > > This removes redundant reset calls and thus makes > device boot/stop/recovery a bit faster. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior About this I'm not that sure. The reason why I wanted to have power_up() and power_down() is the case when we need to control the target power via a gpio line, which I anticipate we will need soon. If you remove these how could we control the gpio line? Wouldn't it be the same that you just make hif_power_up() do the same as hif_reset() and hif_power_down() doesn't do anything (for now)? Or am I missing something? -- Kalle Valo