On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 07:20:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static void acpi_i2c_device_pm_get(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > + struct i2c_adapter *adap = client->adapter;
> > +
> > + /* Make sure the adapter is active */
> > + if (ACPI_HANDLE(adap->dev.parent))
> > + pm_runtime_get_sync(&adap->dev);
> > + if (ACPI_HANDLE(&client->dev))
> > + acpi_dev_pm_attach(&client->dev, true);
>
> It would be sufficient to do
>
> if (ACPI_HANDLE(&client->dev)) {
> pm_runtime_get_sync(&adap->dev);
> acpi_dev_pm_attach(&client->dev, true);
> }
>
> here (and below), because I don't think the client with an ACPI handle and the
> parent without one is extremely unlikely (to the point of non-existence
> actually ;-)). And even if something like that happens, then we only enable
> runtime PM for the adapter if the parent has an ACPI handle, so it still
> should
> be OK.
OK, I'll change that in the next revision.
> Apart from this the patch looks good to me.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
