Hi Jingoo, On 03/17/2014 09:17 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Friday, March 14, 2014 6:30 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> >> This patch use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS macro instead of legacy method. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c >> b/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c >> index 60539e8..e5d2c5a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c >> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c >> @@ -1247,6 +1247,7 @@ static int exynos4_busfreq_remove(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP >> static int exynos4_busfreq_resume(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct busfreq_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> @@ -1254,9 +1255,10 @@ static int exynos4_busfreq_resume(struct device *dev) >> busfreq_mon_reset(data); >> return 0; >> } >> +#endif >> >> static const struct dev_pm_ops exynos4_busfreq_pm = { >> - .resume = exynos4_busfreq_resume, >> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(NULL, exynos4_busfreq_resume) > > Hi Chanwoo Choi, > > How about using SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS instead of SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS? > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS is simpler as below. > > static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(exynos4_busfreq_pm, NULL, exynos4_busfreq_resume); > > However, if runtime pm functions will be added later, > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS is not necessary. >
OK, I'll use SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS on next patchset. Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi -- 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/
