[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y06azpyRsqISBYoj@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:23:42 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/6] spi: pxa2xx: Switch from PM ifdeffery to pm_ptr()
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:14:52AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:12:43 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Cleaning up the driver to use pm_ptr() macro instead of ifdeffery
> > that makes it simpler and allows the compiler to remove those functions
> > if built without CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> FWIW I like these - so drive by review.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
>
> I think you could change the handling of !pm_runtime_suspended()
> to use pm_runtime_force_suspend() and equivalent for resume path.
> I haven't checked that closely though - just looks like a typical
> usecase for those functions that are hardened against some of
> the corner cases that can occur in interactions between different
> forms of pm.
Thanks for an advice. Wouldn't it be matter of a separate change?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists