Return-path: Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.64]:54806 "EHLO mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751012AbbEGIao (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 04:30:44 -0400 Message-ID: <554B22B0.6080708@broadcom.com> (sfid-20150507_103103_117017_A83BC80B) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:30:40 +0200 From: Arend van Spriel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fu, Zhonghui" CC: "brudley@broadcom.com" , Franky Lin , "meuleman@broadcom.com" , Kalle Valo , "pieterpg@broadcom.com" , "hdegoede@redhat.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] brcmfmac: prohibit ACPI power management for brcmfmac driver References: <55463E19.7070709@linux.intel.com> <554AC8EB.9040403@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <554AC8EB.9040403@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/07/15 04:07, Fu, Zhonghui wrote: > > Hi, > > Any comments are welcome. Having some time to spare while spending my vacation so here it is. > Thanks, > Zhonghui > > On 2015/5/3 23:26, Fu, Zhonghui wrote: >> ACPI will manage WiFi chip's power state during suspend/resume >> process on some tablet platforms(such as ASUS T100TA). This is >> not supported by brcmfmac driver now, and the context of WiFi >> chip will be damaged after resume. This patch informs ACPI not >> to manage WiFi chip's power state. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhonghui Fu >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - Another implementation. >> >> drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c >> index 9b508bd..6c519e3 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c >> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> >> #include >> @@ -1114,6 +1115,8 @@ static int brcmf_ops_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, >> int err; >> struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev; >> struct brcmf_bus *bus_if; >> + struct device *dev; >> + struct acpi_device *adev; >> >> brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "Enter\n"); >> brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "Class=%x\n", func->class); >> @@ -1121,6 +1124,11 @@ static int brcmf_ops_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, >> brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "sdio device ID: 0x%04x\n", func->device); >> brcmf_dbg(SDIO, "Function#: %d\n", func->num); >> >> + /* prohibit ACPI power management for this device */ >> + dev =&func->dev; >> + if (adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) While I understand what you are doing here it makes someone reading the code wonder whether a mistake has been made. So I would prefer to have the assignment separate for the if statement. For the update patch you may add: Acked-by: Arend van Spriel Regards, Arend >> + adev->flags.power_manageable = 0; >> + >> /* Consume func num 1 but dont do anything with it. */ >> if (func->num == 1) >> return 0; >> -- 1.7.1 >> >