lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-05 14:21    [W:0.081 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site