Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case | Date | Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:42 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, April 05, 2013 01:39:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, April 05, 2013 09:27:40 AM Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > Hi Li, > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Li Fei <fei.li@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count > > > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct > > > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call > > > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case. > > > > Is it better then to call pm_runtime_put_noidle instead? This way > > we're sure to only take care of usage_count without ever calling any > > underlying pm handler. > > Both would break code that does > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > > <device access> > > pm_runtime_put(dev); > > without checking the result of pm_runtime_get_sync() - which BTW is completely > unnecessary in the majority of cases.
Sorry, scratch that. I should have had a closer look at the context.
Yes, it better to call pm_runtime_put_noidle() in this case.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |