On Mon, 18 May 2015, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> We need this in order to avoid reimplementing the same functions each time
> we add PM runtime support in a driver.
comments below
> Simple grep shows the following users:
> * accel/mma9551.c
> * accel/mmc9553.c
> * accel/kxcjk1013.c
> * accel/bmc150-accel.c
> * gyro/bmg160.c
> * imu/kmx61.c
> * common/hid-sensors.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.bal...@intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/iio/pm_runtime.h | 63
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/iio/pm_runtime.h
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/iio/pm_runtime.h b/include/linux/iio/pm_runtime.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..dc2bca7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/iio/pm_runtime.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +/*
> + * Industrial I/O runtime PM helper functions
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2015, Intel Corporation.
> + *
> + * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of version 2 of
> + * the GNU General Public License. See the file COPYING in the main
> + * directory of this archive for more details.
> + *
> + */
> +#ifndef __IIO_PM_RUNTIME
> +#define __IIO_PM_RUNTIME
> +
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> +
> +static inline int iio_pm_runtime_setup(struct device *dev, int delay,
> + bool ignore_children)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> + if (ret)
just noting: should this be (ret) or (ret < 0)?
pm_runtime_get_sync() below may return negative, 0, and positive
pm_runtime_set_active() seems to return negative or 0
documentation doesn't tell... wondering if (ret < 0) would be safer here?
> + return ret;
> +
> + pm_suspend_ignore_children(dev, ignore_children);
> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> + pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(dev, delay);
> + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void iio_pm_runtime_cleanup(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> + pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> + pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int iio_pm_runtime_set_power(struct device *dev, bool on)
why a static inline function in a header file?
these functions do not seem to be performance critical and are substantial
enough in size to avoid copying the code to every driver
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (on)
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> + else {
> + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> + ret = pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> + }
> +
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed: iio_set_power_state for %d\n", on);
the error message doesn't match the function name, the text, 'for %d', is
not very clear
> + if (on)
> + pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> +
> + return ret;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* __IIO_PM_RUNTIME */
>
--
Peter Meerwald
+43-664-2444418 (mobile)
--
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/
