From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/12] ACPI / PM: Introduce acpi_pm_wakeup_power() Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:00:35 -0800 Message-ID: <20100106140035.6f622acf@jbarnes-piketon> References: <200912272057.10443.rjw@sisk.pl> <200912272106.26569.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200912272106.26569.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Matthew Garrett , Len Brown , LKML , pm list , Alan Stern , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI , Oliver Neukum , Bjorn Helgaas , Shaohua Li , Francois Romieu List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:06:26 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > /** > + * acpi_pm_wakeup_power - Enable/disable device wake-up power. > + * @dev: ACPI device to handle. > + * @enable: Whether to enable or disable the wake-up power of the > device. > + */ > +int acpi_pm_wakeup_power(struct acpi_device *dev, bool enable) > +{ I know we've got these all over now, but functions that just take a bool are generally hard to read when you just look at the call site. If it was called "acpi_pm_set_wakeup_power" and then took an on/off enum it would be really easy to see, from the callsite, what was going on. It's a fairly minor complaint, but it's something that's always bugged me about the PCI PM code in particular. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center