On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 07:29:54AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 03:47:30PM +0530, Vaibhav Gupta wrote: > > > > Agreed. Actually, as their presence only causes PCI core to call > > pci_legacy_suspend/resume() for them, I thought that after removing > > the binding from "struct pci_driver", this driver qualifies to be > > grouped under genric framework, so used "use generic power > > management" for the heading. > > > > I should have written "remove legacy bindning". > > This removed the *mention* of fst_driver.suspend and fst_driver.resume, > which is important because we want to eventually remove those members > completely from struct pci_driver. > > But fst_driver.suspend and fst_driver.resume *exist* before and after > this patch, and they're initialized to zero before and after this > patch. > > Since they were zero before, and they're still zero after this patch, > the PCI core doesn't call pci_legacy_suspend/resume(). This patch > doesn't change that at all. > Got it. Thanks :) > > But David has applied the patch, should I send a v2 or fix to update > > message? > > No, I don't think David updates patches after he's applied them. But > if the situation comes up again, you'll know how to describe it :) > Thanks a lot. :D
Vaibhav Gupta > Bjorn
