[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6007227.iNoRbQyInB@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:05:11 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 Monday, October 16, 2017 8:28:52 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > struct dev_pm_info {
> > pm_message_t power_state;
> > unsigned int can_wakeup:1;
> > @@ -561,6 +580,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > bool is_late_suspended:1;
> > bool early_init:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > bool direct_complete:1; /* Owned by the PM core */
> > + unsigned int driver_flags;
>
> Minor nit, u32 or u64?
u32 I think, will update.
BTW, there's a mess in this struct overall and I'd like all of the bit fileds
to be the same type (and that shouldn't be bool IMO :-)).
Do you prefer u32 or unsinged int?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists