Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:36952 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752554AbaJMIZT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:25:19 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id d1so6734137wiv.0 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:25:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87fves9z5o.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1412842950-14098-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1412842950-14098-6-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <87fves9z5o.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:25:17 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20141013_102525_382506_EA750E00) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ath10k: replace power up/down with reset callback From: Michal Kazior To: Kalle Valo Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 13 October 2014 10:01, Kalle Valo wrote: > 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? Hmm.. I guess that's fine as well. I'll rework it to keep power_up (which will basically do reset) and power_down (nop for now). Michał