On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 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;
Agreed :)
Xinhui, could we have this suggestion in your patch?
Br, David
>
> --
> 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/
