[PATCH v3] thermal: tango: add resume support

[Mason]

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

> Mason wrote:
> 
>> +#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.

>> +
>>  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.