[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181025225742.GB20207@kunai>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 23:57:42 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: renesas_usbhs: Remove dummy runtime PM callbacks
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 04:51:34PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> Platform drivers don't need dummy runtime PM callbacks that just return
> success in order to have runtime PM happening. This has changed since
> following commits:
>
> 05aa55dddb9e ("PM / Runtime: Lenient generic runtime pm callbacks")
> 543f2503a956 ("PM / platform_bus: Allow runtime PM by default")
> 8b313a38ecff ("PM / Platform: Use generic runtime PM callbacks directly")
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops usbhsc_pm_ops = {
> .suspend = usbhsc_suspend,
> .resume = usbhsc_resume,
Unrelated to this patch, but I wonder right now: is there a reason not
to use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS here? Shimoda-san?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists