[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41e73435-375f-1865-69ce-462395476258@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:05:21 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>
Cc: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
"open list:WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/CSR SIRFPRIMA2 MACHINE SUPPORT"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] watchdog: sirfsoc_wdt: remove unnecessary
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
On 10/29/20 12:53 AM, Coiby Xu wrote:
> SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS has already took good care of CONFIG_PM_CONFIG.
>
> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/sirfsoc_wdt.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sirfsoc_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/sirfsoc_wdt.c
> index 734cf2966ecb..dc8341cd7d44 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/sirfsoc_wdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sirfsoc_wdt.c
> @@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ static int sirfsoc_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> static int sirfsoc_wdt_suspend(struct device *dev)
And again: __maybe_unused
I would suggest to test compile the code with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP disabled.
> {
> return 0;
> @@ -189,7 +188,6 @@ static int sirfsoc_wdt_resume(struct device *dev)
>
> return 0;
> }
> -#endif
>
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(sirfsoc_wdt_pm_ops,
> sirfsoc_wdt_suspend, sirfsoc_wdt_resume);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists