[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171016063122.GB28732@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:31:22 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] PM / core: Add NEVER_SKIP and SMART_PREPARE driver
flags
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +static inline void dev_pm_set_driver_flags(struct device *dev, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + dev->power.driver_flags = flags;
> +}
Should this function just set the specific bit? Or is it going to be ok
to set the whole value, meaning you aren't going to care about turning
on and off specific flags over the lifetime of the driver/device, you
are just going to set them once and then just test them as needed?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists