From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755129AbcCUMRl (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:17:41 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34110 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754426AbcCUMRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:17:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:17:36 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Gabriele Mazzotta Cc: dvhart@infradead.org, Jared_Dominguez@dell.com, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, alex.hung@canonical.com, arvidjaar@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended Message-ID: <20160321121736.GH8413@pali> References: <1457740175-8327-1-git-send-email-gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> <1458341063-8753-1-git-send-email-gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1458341063-8753-1-git-send-email-gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context) > +{ > + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context; > + > + rbtn_data->suspended = false; > +} > + > +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev); > + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device); > + > + rbtn_data->suspended = true; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev); > + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device); > + acpi_status status; > + > + /* > + * Clear the flag only after we received the extra > + * ACPI notification. > + */ > + status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER, > + rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data); > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > + rbtn_data->suspended = false; I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails, then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here. Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"? > + return 0; > +} > +#endif -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com