[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrPTJ84-rBcdPH+Vs_L7Hbmh8G-C8fC1zYqP3H3dxn7vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:02:12 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Niklas Soderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: rcar: Use WAKEUP_PATH driver PM flag
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>>> [Ulf: Converted to use the WAKEUP_PATH driver PM flag]
>
> Ulf: + killing the DEV_PM_OPS define, increasing kernel size if PM_SUSPEND=n?
Oh, yes - correct!
The code looks nicer, with the penalty of one static struct declared
and not used, in case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is unset.
Should I revert back to your proposal, I am fine with whatever?
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists