[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171017132641.GD25683@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:26:41 +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 Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:07:37AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:31:22 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 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?
>
> The idea is to set them once and they should not be touched again until
> the driver (or device) goes away, so that would be the whole value at once
> (and one of the i2c-designware-platdrv patches actually sets multiple flags
> in one go).
Ok, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists