Re: [PATCH 1/1] acer-wmi: switch driver to dev_pm_ops
From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Sun Jul 26 2009 - 17:33:32 EST
On Jul 26, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Arnaud Faucher <arnaud.faucher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On dim, 2009-07-26 at 19:35 +0100, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Sunday 26 July 2009 19:08:09 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:23:29PM +0100, Carlos Corbacho wrote:
[Removing linux-mips from CC - I don't know why they'd be
interested in
an x86 only platform driver...]
On Sunday 26 July 2009 14:53:33 Arnaud Faucher wrote:
Gets rid of the following warning:
Platform driver 'acer-wmi' needs updating - please use dev_pm_ops
Take 2, thanks to Dmitry, Rafael and Frans for pointing out PM
issue on
hibernation when using dev_pm_ops blindly.
This patch was tested against suspendand hibernation (Acer mail
led
status).
Signed-off-by: Arnaud Faucher <arnaud.faucher@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
index be2fd6f..29374bc 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
@@ -1152,8 +1152,7 @@ static int acer_platform_remove(struct
platform_device *device)
return 0;
}
-static int acer_platform_suspend(struct platform_device *dev,
-pm_message_t state)
+static int acer_platform_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
u32 value;
struct acer_data *data = &interface->data;
@@ -1174,7 +1173,7 @@ pm_message_t state)
return 0;
}
-static int acer_platform_resume(struct platform_device *device)
+static int acer_platform_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct acer_data *data = &interface->data;
@@ -1190,15 +1189,23 @@ static int acer_platform_resume(struct
platform_device *device)
return 0;
}
+static struct dev_pm_ops acer_platform_pm_ops = {
+ .suspend = acer_platform_suspend,
+ .resume = acer_platform_resume,
Are these necessary? For suspend-to-RAM, I've never needed these.
The old
callbacks here were just for suspend-to-disk.
That is not correct. Old suspend and resume callbacks were called
for
both S2R and S2D. Whether it is actually needed for S2R I don't
know but
looking at the code they should not hurt.
I'm aware they were called for S2RAM as well, but that was just a
limitation
of the old calls - as I say, they're not needed for it (at least on
my
hardware anyway).
I was looking for similar functionality.
+ .freeze = acer_platform_suspend,
+ .thaw = acer_platform_resume,
If we only need these callbacks for freeze & thaw, they should be
rebamed.
+ .poweroff = acer_platform_suspend,
+ .restore = acer_platform_resume,
What do poweroff and restore mean in this context. Do my comments
above
apply again (i.e. are the callbacks necessary here)?
I don't think poweroff handler is needed.
After testing many combinations, I observed that I had to use that
much
callbacks. For example, when omitting to wire .poweroff/.restore,
with .freeze/.thaw linked to suspend()/resume(), the state (of the
mail
led) is not restored correctly after S2D.
Have you tried with just 3 - freeze, thaw and restore?
--
Dmitry
--
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/