linux-kernel - Re[2]: [PATCH 2/4] tty: max310x: Use 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]

Date:	Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:41:18 +0400
From:	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re[2]: [PATCH 2/4] tty: max310x: Use dev_pm_ops

> On 03/11/2013 07:10 PM, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> >> Use dev_pm_ops instead of the deprecated legacy suspend/resume for the
> >> max310x driver.
> >>
> >> Cc: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/tty/serial/max310x.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> >>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/max310x.c b/drivers/tty/serial/max310x.c
> >> index 0c2422c..8941e64 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/max310x.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/max310x.c
> >> @@ -881,12 +881,14 @@ static struct uart_ops max310x_ops = {
> >>  	.verify_port	= max310x_verify_port,
> >>  };
> >>  
> >> -static int max310x_suspend(struct spi_device *spi, pm_message_t state)
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> +
> >> +static int max310x_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>  {
> >>  	int ret;
> >> -	struct max310x_port *s = dev_get_drvdata(&spi->dev);
> >> +	struct max310x_port *s = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>  
> >> -	dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "Suspend\n");
> >> +	dev_dbg(dev, "Suspend\n");
> >>  
> >>  	ret = uart_suspend_port(&s->uart, &s->port);
> >>  
> >> @@ -905,11 +907,11 @@ static int max310x_suspend(struct spi_device *spi, pm_message_t state)
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -static int max310x_resume(struct spi_device *spi)
> >> +static int max310x_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>  {
> >> -	struct max310x_port *s = dev_get_drvdata(&spi->dev);
> >> +	struct max310x_port *s = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>  
> >> -	dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "Resume\n");
> >> +	dev_dbg(dev, "Resume\n");
> >>  
> >>  	if (s->pdata->suspend)
> >>  		s->pdata->suspend(0);
> >> @@ -928,6 +930,13 @@ static int max310x_resume(struct spi_device *spi)
> >>  	return uart_resume_port(&s->uart, &s->port);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max310x_pm_ops, max310x_suspend, max310x_resume);
> >> +#define MAX310X_PM_OPS (&max310x_pm_ops)
> >> +
> >> +#else
> >> +#define MAX310X_PM_OPS NULL
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB
> >>  static int max310x_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -1242,11 +1251,10 @@ static struct spi_driver max310x_driver = {
> >>  	.driver = {
> >>  		.name	= "max310x",
> >>  		.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
> >> +		.pm	= MAX310X_PM_OPS,
> > 
> > Check for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP not necessary at all.
> > <linux/pm.h> will do all for us.
> 
> No it wont, you'll end up with a dev_pm_ops struct full of zeros and two
I.e. NULL, it is OK.

> warnings from your compiler about unused functions.
I think attribute "__maybe_unused" can help here.

> >>  	},
> >>  	.probe		= max310x_probe,
> >>  	.remove		= max310x_remove,
> >> -	.suspend	= max310x_suspend,
> >> -	.resume		= max310x_resume,
> >>  	.id_table	= max310x_id_table,
> >>  };
> >>  module_spi_driver(max310x_driver);
> >> -- 
> >> 1.8.0
> > 
> > ---

---