On 23/07/2016 00:00, Kevin Hilman wrote:

Mason wrote:

quoted

+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+static int tango_thermal_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+	tango_thermal_init(dev_get_drvdata(dev));
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(tango_thermal_pm, NULL, tango_thermal_resume);
+#endif

#else
#define tango_thermal_resume NULL
#endif

And then move the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS here...

Moving the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro outside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard
would unconditionally define a struct dev_pm_ops, which just wastes
space when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is undefined (if I'm not mistaken).

That's why I put SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS inside the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guard.

quoted

+
 static const struct of_device_id tango_sensor_ids[] = {
 	{
 		.compatible = "sigma,smp8758-thermal",

@@ -99,6 +115,9 @@ static struct platform_driver tango_thermal_driver = {
 	.driver	= {
 		.name		= "tango-thermal",
 		.of_match_table	= tango_sensor_ids,
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+		.pm		= &tango_thermal_pm,
+#endif

... which allows you to get rid of the ugly ifdef here.
(c.f. CodingStyle, Chapter 20,)

The previous solution (v2) avoided duplicating the ifdef block,
but Arnd and Thierry objected to the code. Later, they agreed
that it should work; but if they didn't catch the code's intent
at a glance, maybe there is a problem with it anyway.

What do you think?

I copied the DEV_PM_OPS "trick" from drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-bandgap.c
(which was done by Eduardo, a thermal maintainer, so maybe he
prefers that solution after all? commit 8feaf0ce1a043)

Regards.