Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 57/78] media: exynos4-is: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get() | From | Sylwester Nawrocki <> | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:06:31 +0200 |
| |
On 26.04.2021 15:12, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:57:25 +0200 > Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@kernel.org> escreveu: > >> On 24.04.2021 08:45, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Commit dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to deal with usage counter") >>> added pm_runtime_resume_and_get() in order to automatically handle >>> dev->power.usage_count decrement on errors. >>> >>> Use the new API, in order to cleanup the error check logic. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/fimc-is.c b/drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/fimc-is.c >>> index 972d9601d236..bca35866cc74 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/fimc-is.c >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/fimc-is.c >>> @@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ static int fimc_is_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> goto err_irq; >>> } >>> >>> - ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); >>> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev); >>> if (ret < 0) >>> goto err_pm; >> >> It seems you intended to use err_suspend label here. We don't need >> a new label though, instead of err_pm we can jump to err_irq when >> pm_runtime_resume_and_get() fails. > > Thanks! Will fix at the next version. > >> Note that when runtime PM is >> disabled pm_runtime_resume_and_get() always returns 0. > > Ok, but there are a couple of conditions at rpm_resume() function > at drivers/base/power/runtime.c (which is the code that actually > handles those PM macros) that could make it to return errors, > which are independent on the PM callbacks, like those: > > if (dev->power.runtime_error) > retval = -EINVAL; > else if (dev->power.disable_depth > 0) > retval = -EACCES; > > and more might be added as the PM core changes.
Right, I looked only at !CONFIG_PM case, this is what the "if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev))" test and explicit fimc_is_runtime_{resume,suspend} calls were originally for. Agreed, better not to rely too much on internal implementation as there is no specific guarantees about return value at the API documentation.
Regards, Sylwester
>>> @@ -862,6 +862,7 @@ static int fimc_is_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> fimc_is_unregister_subdevs(is); >>> err_pm: >>> pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev); >>> +err_suspend: >>> if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) >>> fimc_is_runtime_suspend(dev); >>> err_irq: >>
| |