From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/12] ACPI / PM: Introduce acpi_pm_wakeup_power()
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:11:50 +0100
Message-ID: <201001072211.50224.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <200912272057.10443.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100106140035.6f622acf@jbarnes-piketon> <201001070011.49755.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:47306 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753950Ab0AGVLe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:11:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201001070011.49755.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>

On Thursday 07 January 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:06:26 +0100
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> 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.
> 
> Well, in this particular case acpi_pm_wakeup_power() uses a bool, because
> acpi_pm_device_sleep_wake() (which is a caller of it) does.  IMO it won't
> be logical to use something else just here.
> 
> Also, as you noticed above, this follows a convention used not only in the
> PCI PM, but generally in the core PM code.  Although we could change this
> convention, I'm not really sure that would be worth the effort.

That said, it looks like we can drop this (ie. [9/12]) patch altogether if the
next one is changed slightly.

I'll post the modified [10/12] shortly.

Rafael