Re: [RFC PATCH 2/11] input: RMI4 core bus and sensor drivers.

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 01/05/2012 09:49 PM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 10:38 PM, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> On Thursday 22 December 2011 07:39 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny<cheiny@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
> [snip]
> 
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>>> +static int rmi_bus_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef GENERIC_SUBSYS_PM_OPS
>>> +    const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
>>> +
>>> +    if (pm&&  pm->suspend)
>>> +        return pm->suspend(dev);
>> If driver-pm- suspend is not there should you not fall back to .
>> suspend ?
> 
> You're thinking of dev->driver->suspend here, right?  If so, that sounds
> good to me.
> 

This will add a ambiguity as to how to specify to suspend/resume callbacks.
Just use generic_subsys_pm_ops for your bus' pm ops. It should work and will
also allow drivers to implement other pm callbacks than just suspend and resume.
--
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/