linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: mcp16502: Use #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP around mcp16502_suspend/resume

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3751abc0-1377-2a66-3fa9-7ceee93b7aab@microchip.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:17:50 +0000
From:   <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     <axel.lin@...ics.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <Andrei.Stefanescu@...rochip.com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>,
        <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: mcp16502: Use #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP around
 mcp16502_suspend/resume_noirq

On 20/12/2018 at 14:14, Axel Lin wrote:
> mcp16502_suspend/resume_noirq is only used by SET_NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS
> when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is defined.
> So use #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP instead CONFIG_SUSPEND guard.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>

I'm not against this patch and don't know the habits about this... one 
remark below...


> ---
> This patch replaces below patch I sent today.
> regulator: mcp16502: Fix build error when !CONFIG_SUSPEND && CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> Changed the subject line because after commit 308144ce8e51 ("regulator: mcp16502: code cleanup")
> it's not related to build error now.
> 
>   drivers/regulator/mcp16502.c | 7 ++-----
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/mcp16502.c b/drivers/regulator/mcp16502.c
> index 809a664733a4..cb11fb206899 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/mcp16502.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/mcp16502.c
> @@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ static int mcp16502_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

Why not use CONFIG_PM just like ...

>   static int mcp16502_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> @@ -517,10 +517,7 @@ static int mcp16502_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> -#else /* !CONFIG_SUSPEND */
> -#define mcp16502_suspend_noirq NULL
> -#define mcp16502_resume_noirq NULL
> -#endif /* !CONFIG_SUSPEND */
> +#endif
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_PM

... here.... or unify both directives to "CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" ?


Otherwise, no problem in adding my:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>

(as Andrei is not with Microchip anymore).


>   static const struct dev_pm_ops mcp16502_pm_ops = {
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre