On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> 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.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
