Re: [PATCH] Add SIMPLE_PM_OPS: make switching to dev_pm_ops less error-prone

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 05 August 2009, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:55:33PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote :
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:36:12AM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> > > In a number of cases, the .suspend, .freeze, .poweroff and .resume,
> > > .thaw, .restore functions are identical. However, they all need to be
> > > assigned to avoid regressionsm as the previous code called .suspend
> > > resp. .resume in all those cases. SIMPLE_PM_OPS allows to deal with
> > > this case.
> 
> 
> > I'd much rather have conversions done with a bit more analysis now that
> > our framework is more flexible and we can have specialized routines for
> > hibernation and suspend.
> 
> I still think that even though they can, quite a number of drivers won't
> /need/ to have different functions for this, but maybe I'm mistaken.
> 
> > Maybe we should try changing from run-time to build time warning so that
> > users are not overly concerned with it?
> 
> I'm not sure that solves the problem. The fact is that even for developers, it's
> easy to overlook that assiging only the .suspend and .resume fields is probably
> a mistake.

I agree, so I'm going to take the patch.

I'll add a comment describing what the macro is for, though.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/