On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:39:01PM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: > I've seen some reference to the existing `suspend` method as being > legacy. e.g., drivers/base/power/main.c:__device_suspend:
I think this is because class->pm is the modern way to do class->suspend, not because class methods are legacy. > In addition, it's not clear to me that the tpm codebase is using > class->suspend right now; it looks like for the most part each > device Yes, but that doesn't mean this is the right way to do things, it just means this old code hasn't really been updated. The tpm subsystem was a total mess just a few years ago, not everything is cleaned up yet.. eg it would probably make much more sense to hook class->pm to do tpm_pm_suspend rather than have each driver include the same STATIC_DEV_PM_OPS. > Is there some reason a similar approach of having each driver type > register its own shutdown function pointer (that might just all be the > same function, much like tpm_pm_suspend) would not be acceptable? Now that we have so many tpm drivers it is a very good idea not to introduce boilerplate into every driver, we should be going the other way :) Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
