Re: [PATCH] phy: core: properly handle failure of pm_runtime_get functions

2013-12-19 Thread David Cohen
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:29:04AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > On Friday 13 December 2013 12:01 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > In case pm_runtime_get*() fails, it still > > increments pm usage counter, so we *must* > > make sure to pm_runtime_put() even in those > > cases. >

Re: [PATCH] phy: core: properly handle failure of pm_runtime_get functions

2013-12-19 Thread Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Hi Felipe, On Friday 13 December 2013 12:01 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > In case pm_runtime_get*() fails, it still > increments pm usage counter, so we *must* > make sure to pm_runtime_put() even in those > cases. > > This patch fixes that mistake the same way > usbcore treats those possible failure

Re: [PATCH] phy: core: properly handle failure of pm_runtime_get functions

2013-12-17 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday 13 December 2013 12:01 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > In case pm_runtime_get*() fails, it still > > increments pm usage counter, so we *must* > > make sure to pm_runtime_put() even in those > > cases. > > But shouldn't the fix b

Re: [PATCH] phy: core: properly handle failure of pm_runtime_get functions

2013-12-17 Thread Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Hi, On Friday 13 December 2013 12:01 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > In case pm_runtime_get*() fails, it still > increments pm usage counter, so we *must* > make sure to pm_runtime_put() even in those > cases. But shouldn't the fix be in pm_runtime_get()? Cheers Kishon > > This patch fixes that mist