From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756387AbdJPWOu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:14:50 -0400
Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:59907 "EHLO
        cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754677AbdJPWOs (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:14:48 -0400
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] PM / core: Add NEVER_SKIP and SMART_PREPARE driver flags
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:05:11 +0200
Message-ID: <6007227.iNoRbQyInB@aspire.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20171016062852.GA28732@kroah.com>
References: <3806130.B2KCK0tvef@aspire.rjw.lan> <1998650.Q52BuGQTI4@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171016062852.GA28732@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:28:52 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >  struct dev_pm_info {
> >  	pm_message_t		power_state;
> >  	unsigned int		can_wakeup:1;
> > @@ -561,6 +580,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> >  	bool			is_late_suspended:1;
> >  	bool			early_init:1;	/* Owned by the PM core */
> >  	bool			direct_complete:1;	/* Owned by the PM core */
> > +	unsigned int		driver_flags;
> 
> Minor nit, u32 or u64?

u32 I think, will update.

BTW, there's a mess in this struct overall and I'd like all of the bit fileds
to be the same type (and that shouldn't be bool IMO :-)).

Do you prefer u32 or unsinged int?

Thanks,
Rafael