* Tony Lindgren <[email protected]> [150514 09:30]: > * Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> [150514 09:12]: > > > > int dev_pm_request_wake_irq_managed(struct device *dev, int irq); > > > > I don't get this. Would this request with devm_ while the former > > wouldn't use devm_ ? > > Typo :) Both can be devm no problem. ...
> > > The life cycle of the request and free of the wake irq is not the > > > same as the life cycle of the device driver. For example, serial > > > drivers can request interrupts on startup and free them on shutdown. > > > > fair enough, but then we start to consider the benefits of using > > devm_ IRQ :-) > > Hmm probably the extra checks do not hurt there either. We should keep the PM related functions called dev_pm_*, using devm_pm_* just gets hard to pronounce.. So yeah I too am thinking just not using devm here at all as the consumer drivers are not allocating anything. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
