lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v4 3/3] eeprom: at24: enable runtime pm support
Date
Hi Sakari,

Thanks for the review.
My comments below.

---
^Divagar

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sakari Ailus [mailto:sakari.ailus@iki.fi]
>Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:07 PM
>To: Mohandass, Divagar <divagar.mohandass@intel.com>
>Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org; mark.rutland@arm.com; wsa@the-dreams.de;
>devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mani, Rajmohan <rajmohan.mani@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] eeprom: at24: enable runtime pm support
>
>On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Mohandass, Divagar wrote:
>> >> @@ -743,6 +770,14 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client
>> >> *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> >>
>> >> i2c_set_clientdata(client, at24);
>> >>
>> >> + /* enable runtime pm */
>> >> + pm_runtime_get_noresume(&client->dev);
>> >> + err = pm_runtime_set_active(&client->dev);
>> >> + if (err < 0)
>> >> + goto err_clients;
>> >
>> >Btw. I don't think pm_runtime_set_active() can fail here. In other
>> >words it'd be fine to ignore the return value.
>> >
>>
>> Ack
>>
>>
>> >> +
>> >> + pm_runtime_enable(&client->dev);
>> >> +
>> >> /*
>> >> * Perform a one-byte test read to verify that the
>> >> * chip is functional.
>> >> @@ -753,6 +788,8 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client
>> >> *client, const
>> >struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> >> goto err_clients;
>> >
>> >I suppose the runtime PM state is re-initialised for a device when a
>> >driver is probed, but it'd still be nice to decrement the use count if this
>fails.
>>
>> Ack
>>
>> >You should also disable PM runtime if probe fails and set the device
>> >suspended again.
>> >
>> >Same for other error cases. I think you'll need a new label.
>> >
>>
>> Can I disable PM runtime and set suspend in the 'err_clients' label itself ?
>
>Disable, yes, but the get and put calls need to be balanced.

We are performing pm_runtime_put after the first read check and in the error condition, so PM runtime disable alone should be sufficient in the 'err_clients' label.
I think it is balanced, your comments ?

>
>--
>Sakari Ailus
>e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-01 20:27    [W:0.049 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site