From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: lpss: Check PWM powerstate after resume on Cherry Trail devices References: <20180911173050.2374-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20180924091841.GG15943@smile.fi.intel.com> <02750104-3029-13df-7506-95416a89d68b@redhat.com> <2073706.oZqG2eVWq3@aspire.rjw.lan> <20181006141651.GW15943@smile.fi.intel.com> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:14:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181006141651.GW15943@smile.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 06-10-18 16:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 10:55:41AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> On 03-10-18 11:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 11:40:14 AM CEST Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Also, why don't you use acpi_device_get_power() instead of evaluating >>> _PSC directly? It should make no difference if there are no power >>> resources, should it? > >> 2) acpi_device_get_power() is not exported to modules > > Do we have any side effects if we just export it? > I would think exporting is better than open coding. acpi_device_get_power() does a lot more then just call the _PSC method, while as explained we really just want the _PSC method as that checks the actual D3 bit which we are interested in. But as Rafael mentioned if the DSDT does not define power-resources (which in the 3 DSDTs I just checked it doesn't for the PWM node) then acpi_device_get_power() is equivalent. So I guess I could change this, but I would prefer to stick with the direct _PSC call. Regards, Hans