Re: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from 2.6.31.1 to 2.6.31.2 - Dell Inspiron 600m

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 02 November 2009, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> just two minor nit-pick which we could handle post-2.6.32:
> 
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pcmcia/cs.c
> > @@ -98,10 +98,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pcmcia_socket_list_rwsem);
> >   * These functions check for the appropriate struct pcmcia_soket arrays,
> >   * and pass them to the low-level functions pcmcia_{suspend,resume}_socket
> 
> ... some documentation of the new functions, especially whether other socket
> drivers should be updated?

OK, I'll post a separate patch for that for .33.

> > -static int socket_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
> > +static void socket_start_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
> >  {
> > -	int ret;
> > -
> > -	if (!(skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND))
> > -		return -EBUSY;
> > -
> >  	skt->socket = dead_socket;
> >  	skt->ops->init(skt);
> >  	skt->ops->set_socket(skt, &skt->socket);
> > +	if (skt->state & SOCKET_PRESENT)
> > +		skt->resume_status = socket_setup(skt, resume_delay);
> > +}
> >  
> > +static int socket_early_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
> > +{
> > +	socket_start_resume(skt);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Why do we need to have two functions doing the same? Wouldn't
> 
> static int socket_early_resume(...)
> 
> suffice, with the only call to socket_start_resume() being replaced with
> socket_early_resume()?

Yes, it would.  I'll do that in the final version of the patch.

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/