[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <516FDDF3.30507@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:20:11 +0530
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To: Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@...il.com>
CC: <balbi@...com>, Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
<sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>, <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
<kgene.kim@...sung.com>, <dianders@...omium.org>,
<t.figa@...sung.com>, <p.paneri@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] usb: phy: Add APIs for runtime power management
On Tuesday 02 April 2013 06:10 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 04:04:01PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 07:24:00PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> Adding APIs to handle runtime power management on PHY
>>>>> devices. PHY consumers may need to wake-up/suspend PHYs
>>>>> when they work across autosuspend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/linux/usb/phy.h | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/phy.h b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>>>>> index 6b5978f..01bf9c1 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
>>>>> @@ -297,4 +297,145 @@ static inline const char *usb_phy_type_string(enum usb_phy_type type)
>>>>> return "UNKNOWN PHY TYPE";
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline void usb_phy_autopm_enable(struct usb_phy *x)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (!x || !x->dev) {
>>>>> + dev_err(x->dev, "no PHY or attached device available\n");
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> wrong indentation, also, I'm not sure we should allow calls with NULL
>>>> pointers. Perhaps a WARN() so we get API offenders early enough ?
>>>
>>> True, bad coding style :-(
>>> We should be handling dev_err with a NULL pointer.
>>> Will just keep here:
>>> if (WARN_ON(!x->dev))
>>> return .... ;
>>
>> right, but I guess:
>>
>> if (WARN(!x || !x->dev, "Invalid parameters\n"))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> would be better ??
btw, shouldn't it be IS_ERR(x)?
Thanks
Kishon
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists