On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:33:04 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 18.03.2014 12:23, Cho KyongHo wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:07:53 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> Hi KyongHo, > >> > >> On 14.03.2014 06:10, Cho KyongHo wrote: > > [snip] > > >>> @@ -677,11 +679,40 @@ static int __init exynos_sysmmu_probe(struct > >>> platform_device *pdev) > >>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, data); > >>> > >>> pm_runtime_enable(dev); > >>> + data->runtime_active = !pm_runtime_enabled(dev); > >> > >> Hmm, this seems to be a bit misleading. The field is named > >> runtime_active, but the assignment makes it true if PM runtime is _not_ > >> enabled (i.e. inactive). Is this correct? > >> > > > > I agree that it may lead misunderstood. > > data->runtime_active actually indicates if electric power is asserted > > to the System MMU. pm_runtime_enable() call must enable runtime pm > > for the given device. If runtime pm is not enabled although > > pm_runtime_enable() > > is called, CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is not configured. > > > > Actually, it is replacible with > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)) > > data->runtime_active = true; > > I would keep it as !pm_runtime_enabled(dev), but rename the field to > something more meaningful, like data->is_powered_on. >
That is good idea. thanks for advice. KyongHo. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
