[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190206085405.pdiwd3c6wjog5hl7@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:54:05 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, jic23@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
vilhelm.gray@...il.com, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Tomasz Duszynski <tduszyns@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: stm32-lp: Add power management support
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:42:48AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> If you agree with the current approach, I can send a V2 with Tomasz's
> suggestion to remove the ifdefs and use __maybe_unused instead.
I think the suspend callback should have something like:
if (is_still_enabled) {
/*
* The consumer didn't stop us, so refuse to suspend.
*/
dev_err(dev, "The consumer didn't stop us, so refuse to suspend.\n");
return -EBUSY;
}
This way there are no bad surprises if the pwm is suspended before its
consumer and it's obvious what is missing.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists