Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 3/4] tpm: Convert tpm_tis driver to use dev_pm_ops from legacy pm_ops

[Peter Hüwe]

Hi Shuah,
thanks for your reply.


> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> +	.driver	= {
> >> +		.pm = &tpm_tis_pm,
> >> +	},
> >> +#endif
> >> 
> >>   };
> > 
> > I don't think the #if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is required here.
In this case, the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro handles the case internally - i.e. 
no matter whether CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is set or not, the correct structure is set 
up and thus no ifdef needed.


> 
> tpm_tis_resume() is defined originally in CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope. I can
> make the change to have tpm_tis_resume() not be in CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope
> and remove this CONFIG_PM_SLEEP when defining .pm. 
> That does make sense looking at tpm_pm_suspend() and tpm_pm_resume() which  
> are defined ithout CONFIG_PM_SLEEP scope. Sounds like the right approach?
> I will redo the patch and send v2.

Hmm,
at first I thought that would be a good idea, however scrolling to the git 
history I found:

commit 07368d32f1a67e797def08cf2ee3ea1647b204b6
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Aug 9 23:00:35 2012 +0200

    tpm_tis / PM: Fix unused function warning for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
    
    According to a compiler warning, the tpm_tis_resume() function is not
    used for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset, so add a #ifdef to prevent it from
    being built in that case.
    
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>

So removing it there would effectively revert the patch and re-enable the 
warning.


 
> I find that the use of CONFIG_PM, CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, and CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> are not very consistent. :)
Yes.

Maybe the better idea is to add the correct CONFIG_PM ifdefs for all code 
paths related to PM.
Or leave the CONFIG_PM for tpm_tis_resume as it is.


Thanks,
Peter
--
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/