On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> 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.
fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
return err ?: -EBUSY;
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
