> operation to deal with usage counter
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:00 PM Zhang Qilong <zhangqilo...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > In many case, we need to check return value of pm_runtime_get_sync,
> > but it brings a trouble to the usage counter processing. Many callers
> > forget to decrease the usage counter when it failed. It has been
> > discussed a lot[0][1]. So we add a function to deal with the usage
> > counter for better coding.
> >
> > [0]https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/14/88
> > [1]https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/202005200951
> > 48.10995-1-dinghao....@zju.edu.cn/
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Qilong <zhangqilo...@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > index 4b708f4e8eed..6549ce764400 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > @@ -386,6 +386,36 @@ static inline int pm_runtime_get_sync(struct device
> *dev)
> > return __pm_runtime_resume(dev, RPM_GET_PUT); }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * pm_runtime_general_get - Bump up usage counter of a device and
> resume it.
> > + * @dev: Target device.
> > + *
> > + * Increase runtime PM usage counter of @dev first, and carry out
> > +runtime-resume
> > + * of it synchronously. If __pm_runtime_resume return negative
> > +value(device is in
> > + * error state), we to need decrease the usage counter before it
> > +return. If
> > + * __pm_runtime_resume return positive value, it means the runtime of
> > +device has
> > + * already been in active state, and we let the new wrapper return zero
> instead.
> > + *
> > + * The possible return values of this function is zero or negative value.
> > + * zero:
> > + * - it means resume succeeed or runtime of device has already been
> active, the
> > + * runtime PM usage counter of @dev remains incremented.
> > + * negative:
> > + * - it means failure and the runtime PM usage counter of @dev has
> been balanced.
>
> The kerneldoc above is kind of noisy and it is hard to figure out what the
> helper
> really does from it.
>
> You could basically say something like "Resume @dev synchronously and if that
> is successful, increment its runtime PM usage counter. Return
> 0 if the runtime PM usage counter of @dev has been incremented or a negative
> error code otherwise."
>
How about the following description.
/**
390 * pm_runtime_general_get - Bump up usage counter of a device and resume it.
391 * @dev: Target device.
392 *
393 * Increase runtime PM usage counter of @dev first, and carry out
runtime-resume
394 * of it synchronously. If __pm_runtime_resume return negative value(device
is in
395 * error state), we to need decrease the usage counter before it return. If
396 * __pm_runtime_resume return positive value, it means the runtime of
device has
397 * already been in active state, and we let the new wrapper return zero
instead.
398 *
399 * Resume @dev synchronously and if that is successful, and increment its
runtime
400 * PM usage counter if it turn out to equal to 0. The runtime PM usage
counter of
401 * @dev has been incremented or a negative error code otherwise.
402 */
Thanks,
Zhang
> > + */
> > +static inline int pm_runtime_general_get(struct device *dev)
>
> What about pm_runtime_resume_and_get()?
>
I think it's OK.
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
>
> This extra initialization is not necessary.
>
> You can initialize ret to the __pm_runtime_resume() return value right away.
>
OK, good idea.
> > +
> > + ret = __pm_runtime_resume(dev, RPM_GET_PUT);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * pm_runtime_put - Drop device usage counter and queue up "idle check"
> if 0.
> > * @dev: Target device.
> > --
