On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:59 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Tri Vo (2019-07-31 14:55:14)
> > +/**
> > + * wakeup_source_sysfs_add - Add wakeup_source attributes to sysfs.
> > + * @parent: Device given wakeup source is associated with (or NULL if
> > virtual).
> > + * @ws: Wakeup source to be added in sysfs.
> > + */
> > +int wakeup_source_sysfs_add(struct device *parent, struct wakeup_source
> > *ws)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + int id;
> > +
> > + id = ida_alloc(&wakeup_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (id < 0)
> > + return id;
> > + ws->id = id;
> > +
> > + dev = device_create_with_groups(wakeup_class, parent, MKDEV(0, 0),
> > ws,
> > + wakeup_source_groups, "ws%d",
>
> I thought the name was going to still be 'wakeupN'?
I don't really have an opinion on this. Rafael seems to prefer "ws",
and he's the maintainer :)
>
> > + ws->id);
> > + if (IS_ERR(dev)) {
> > + ida_free(&wakeup_ida, ws->id);
> > + return PTR_ERR(dev);
> > + }
> > +
> > + ws->dev = dev;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_sysfs_add);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * wakeup_source_sysfs_remove - Remove wakeup_source attributes from sysfs.
> > + * @ws: Wakeup source to be removed from sysfs.
> > + */
> > +void wakeup_source_sysfs_remove(struct wakeup_source *ws)
> > +{
> > + device_unregister(ws->dev);
> > + ida_simple_remove(&wakeup_ida, ws->id);
>
> Should be ida_free()?
oops
>
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_sysfs_remove);
> > +
> > +static int __init wakeup_sources_sysfs_init(void)
> > +{
> > + wakeup_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, "wakeup");
> > +
> > + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(wakeup_class);
> > +}
> > +
> > +postcore_initcall(wakeup_sources_sysfs_init);
>
> Style nitpick: Stick the initcall to the function it calls by dropping
> the extra newline between them.
will do
