28.04.2021 10:20, Mauro Carvalho Chehab пишет:
> Em Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:47:01 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> 27.04.2021 13:26, Mauro Carvalho Chehab пишет:
>>> @@ -1088,8 +1090,9 @@ static int tegra_vde_remove(struct platform_device
>>> *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct tegra_vde *vde = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> - pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
>>
>> Should be cleaner to return error directly here, IMO.
>
> I double-checked how drivers/base/platform.c deals with non-zero
> returns at the .remove method:
>
> static int platform_remove(struct device *_dev)
> {
> struct platform_driver *drv = to_platform_driver(_dev->driver);
> struct platform_device *dev = to_platform_device(_dev);
>
> if (drv->remove) {
> int ret = drv->remove(dev);
>
> if (ret)
> dev_warn(_dev, "remove callback returned a
> non-zero value. This will be ignored.\n");
> }
> dev_pm_domain_detach(_dev, true);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Basically, it will print a message but will ignore whatever happens
> afterwards.
>
> So, if the driver is changed to return an error there, it will leak
> resources.
Indeed, thank you. But then the pm_runtime_get_sync() should be more
appropriate since this function is specifically made for such cases
where returned value is ignored.
A better option could be better to add a clarifying comment to the code
rather than to change it to a variant which introduces confusion, IMO.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
