pm: use actions for device PM control
Instead of passing target states, use actions for device PM control. Actions represent better the meaning of the callback argument. Furthermore, they are more future proof as they can be suitable for other PM actions that have no direct mapping to a state. If we compare with Linux, we could have a multi-stage suspend/resume. Such scenario would not have a good mapping when using target states. Signed-off-by: Gerard Marull-Paretas <gerard.marull@nordicsemi.no>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8be0472ba8
commit
7ccc1a41bc
40 changed files with 176 additions and 145 deletions
|
@ -292,15 +292,15 @@ static void pwm_nrfx_uninit(const struct device *dev)
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int pwm_nrfx_pm_control(const struct device *dev,
|
||||
enum pm_device_state state)
|
||||
enum pm_device_action action)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int err = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
switch (state) {
|
||||
case PM_DEVICE_STATE_ACTIVE:
|
||||
switch (action) {
|
||||
case PM_DEVICE_ACTION_RESUME:
|
||||
err = pwm_nrfx_init(dev);
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case PM_DEVICE_STATE_SUSPENDED:
|
||||
case PM_DEVICE_ACTION_SUSPEND:
|
||||
pwm_nrfx_uninit(dev);
|
||||
break;
|
||||
default:
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue