linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200907261523.30378.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:23:29 +0100
From:	Carlos Corbacho <carlos@...angeworlds.co.uk>
To:	Arnaud Faucher <arnaud.faucher@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
	Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...il.com>,
	Erik Ekman <erik@...o.se>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm_ops

[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 <arnaud.faucher@...il.com>
> ---
>  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.

> +	.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)?

> +};
> +
>  static struct platform_driver acer_platform_driver = {
>  	.driver = {
>  		.name = "acer-wmi",
>  		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +		.pm = &acer_platform_pm_ops,
>  	},
>  	.probe = acer_platform_probe,
>  	.remove = acer_platform_remove,
> -	.suspend = acer_platform_suspend,
> -	.resume = acer_platform_resume,
>  };
>
>  static struct platform_device *acer_platform_device;

-Carlos
-- 
E-Mail: carlos@...angeworlds.co.uk
Web: strangeworlds.co.uk
GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/