On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > From: "xinhui.pan" <xinhuix....@intel.com>
> >
> > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: bo.he <bo...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan <xinhuix....@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops =
> > {
> >
> > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > return -EBUSY;
>
> wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> }
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
Br, David
>
> cheers
>
> --
> balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
