diff mbox series

PM / wakeup: Add dev_wakeup_path() helper

Message ID 20200320113233.10219-1-patrice.chotard@st.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested, archived
Headers show
Series PM / wakeup: Add dev_wakeup_path() helper | expand

Commit Message

Patrice CHOTARD March 20, 2020, 11:32 a.m. UTC
From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>

Add dev_wakeup_path() helper to avoid to spread
dev->power.wakeup_path test in drivers.

In case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not set, wakeup_path is not defined,
dev_wakeup_path() is returning false.

Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
---

Currently, in mainline kernel, no drivers are testing dev->power.wakeup_path
for PM purpose. A stm32 serial driver patch will be submitted soon and will 
make usage of this helper.

 include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

Comments

Ulf Hansson March 20, 2020, 11:55 a.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 12:32, <patrice.chotard@st.com> wrote:
>
> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>
> Add dev_wakeup_path() helper to avoid to spread
> dev->power.wakeup_path test in drivers.

I am okay adding a helper, but would appreciate if you send a series
to convert those using the flag currently.

>
> In case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not set, wakeup_path is not defined,
> dev_wakeup_path() is returning false.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
> ---
>
> Currently, in mainline kernel, no drivers are testing dev->power.wakeup_path
> for PM purpose. A stm32 serial driver patch will be submitted soon and will
> make usage of this helper.
>
>  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> index aa3da6611533..d0bd13c19253 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
>         return dev->power.can_wakeup && !!dev->power.wakeup;
>  }
>
> +static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       return !!dev->power.wakeup_path;

Why using "!!" here?

> +}
> +
>  static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
>  {
>         dev->power.wakeup_path = true;
> @@ -174,6 +179,11 @@ static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
>         return dev->power.can_wakeup && dev->power.should_wakeup;
>  }
>
> +static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       return false;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev) {}
>
>  static inline void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws) {}
> --
> 2.17.1
>

Kind regards
Uffe
Patrice CHOTARD March 20, 2020, 12:48 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Ulf

On 3/20/20 12:55 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 12:32, <patrice.chotard@st.com> wrote:
>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>>
>> Add dev_wakeup_path() helper to avoid to spread
>> dev->power.wakeup_path test in drivers.
> I am okay adding a helper, but would appreciate if you send a series
> to convert those using the flag currently.

Ok, we wanted to be sure that this helper will be accepted before updating our driver with it.

A new series will be sent including this patch and driver using it.

>
>> In case CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not set, wakeup_path is not defined,
>> dev_wakeup_path() is returning false.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Currently, in mainline kernel, no drivers are testing dev->power.wakeup_path
>> for PM purpose. A stm32 serial driver patch will be submitted soon and will
>> make usage of this helper.
>>
>>  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
>> index aa3da6611533..d0bd13c19253 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
>>         return dev->power.can_wakeup && !!dev->power.wakeup;
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +       return !!dev->power.wakeup_path;
> Why using "!!" here?

right, not needed,  wakeup_path is already a boolean....

Thanks

Patrice

>
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>>         dev->power.wakeup_path = true;
>> @@ -174,6 +179,11 @@ static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
>>         return dev->power.can_wakeup && dev->power.should_wakeup;
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +       return false;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev) {}
>>
>>  static inline void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws) {}
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
index aa3da6611533..d0bd13c19253 100644
--- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
+++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
@@ -84,6 +84,11 @@  static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
 	return dev->power.can_wakeup && !!dev->power.wakeup;
 }
 
+static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
+{
+	return !!dev->power.wakeup_path;
+}
+
 static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
 {
 	dev->power.wakeup_path = true;
@@ -174,6 +179,11 @@  static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
 	return dev->power.can_wakeup && dev->power.should_wakeup;
 }
 
+static inline bool device_wakeup_path(struct device *dev)
+{
+	return false;
+}
+
 static inline void device_set_wakeup_path(struct device *dev) {}
 
 static inline void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws) {}