Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework

Russell King wrote:

The third parameter is obsolete and should only be used to select _one_
of the tree suspend calls you will get.

Any additional suspend calls should _not_ create extra usage of this
parameter.  It's a left over from Pat's first driver model incarnation
which is specific to the platform device drivers.  (Mainly it exists
because no one can be bothered to clean it up.)

Oops... I mixed it with state parameter.
We need to track down the state parameter to setup wakeups.

The mixture was mostly provocated by using 'pm_message_t' instead of 'state' in David's suspend fucntion which doesn't look right to me by itself.

Vitaly

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework
    • From: David Brownell <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework
    • From: Vitaly Wool <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] release_resource() check for NULL resource
• Next by Date: Re: what's next for the linux kernel?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] simple SPI framework
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]