Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1672380 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-22 09:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-26 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] ACPI / PM: Consolidate device wakeup settings code Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-06-22 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] ACPI / PM: Consolidate device wakeup settings code "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-06-22 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] ACPI / PM: Consolidate device wakeup settings code "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-06-23 03:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] ACPI / PM: Consolidate device wakeup settings code Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-06-26 15:40 +0200
| From | Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] ACPI / PM: Consolidate device wakeup settings code |
| Message-ID | <tV4SC-1wt-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:33:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > -/** > - * acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake - Enable or disable device to wake up the system. > - * @dev: Device to enable/desible to wake up the system from sleep states. > - * @enable: Whether to enable or disable @dev to wake up the system. > - */ > -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake(struct device *dev, bool enable) > +int acpi_pm_device_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable) Can we call it acpi_pm_device_enable_wakeup() and then provide corresponding acpi_pm_device_disable_wakeup()? I find those easier to understand than acpi_pm_device_wakeup() that sounds like the device should be woken up now.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVbAL-62K-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1672380 |
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:39:37 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:33:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > -/** > > - * acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake - Enable or disable device to wake up the system. > > - * @dev: Device to enable/desible to wake up the system from sleep states. > > - * @enable: Whether to enable or disable @dev to wake up the system. > > - */ > > -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > +int acpi_pm_device_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > Can we call it acpi_pm_device_enable_wakeup() and then provide > corresponding acpi_pm_device_disable_wakeup()? I find those easier to > understand than acpi_pm_device_wakeup() that sounds like the device > should be woken up now. OK, fair enough. I'll change it this way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 03:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tVlqq-3Vc-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1672704 |
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 04:38:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:39:37 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:33:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > > -/** > > > - * acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake - Enable or disable device to wake up the system. > > > - * @dev: Device to enable/desible to wake up the system from sleep states. > > > - * @enable: Whether to enable or disable @dev to wake up the system. > > > - */ > > > -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > > +int acpi_pm_device_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > > > Can we call it acpi_pm_device_enable_wakeup() and then provide > > corresponding acpi_pm_device_disable_wakeup()? I find those easier to > > understand than acpi_pm_device_wakeup() that sounds like the device > > should be woken up now. > > OK, fair enough. I'll change it this way. Well, sorry, I'd rather not to, or we'll have to add a wrapper around them in pci-acpi.c. :-) I can rename it to acpi_pm_device_set_wakeup(), though. Thanks, Rafael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tWCpd-2Xw-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1673165 |
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:05:57AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 04:38:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:39:37 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:33:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > > > -/** > > > > - * acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake - Enable or disable device to wake up the system. > > > > - * @dev: Device to enable/desible to wake up the system from sleep states. > > > > - * @enable: Whether to enable or disable @dev to wake up the system. > > > > - */ > > > > -int acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > > > +int acpi_pm_device_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable) > > > > > > Can we call it acpi_pm_device_enable_wakeup() and then provide > > > corresponding acpi_pm_device_disable_wakeup()? I find those easier to > > > understand than acpi_pm_device_wakeup() that sounds like the device > > > should be woken up now. > > > > OK, fair enough. I'll change it this way. > > Well, sorry, I'd rather not to, or we'll have to add a wrapper around them in > pci-acpi.c. :-) > > I can rename it to acpi_pm_device_set_wakeup(), though. Works for me :)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web