On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
>
> 于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> 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;
> >> }
> >
> > That's how it is currently :)
> >
> > But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> > of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> > perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
> >
> > Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
> >
> > Br, David
> >
> hi ,David & Balbi
> I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use pm_schedule_suspend
> then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
> I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
> to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
Br, David
> >>
> >> just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/
