Hi, On 1/22/21 10:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:03 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 1/18/21 1:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:06 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>> Can you elaborate switchings from get() to get_sync() in few places >> >> Sorry, those 2 changes really should have been in a separate commit. >> I've put the 2 get -> get_sync() changed in their own commit now >> with the following commit-msg: >> >> """ >> extcon: arizona: Always use pm_runtime_get_sync() when we need the device to be awake >> >> Before this commit the extcon-arizona code was mixing pm_runtime_get() >> and pm_runtime_get_sync() in different places. In all cases where >> either function is called we make use of the device immediately > > called and we That changes the meaning of the sentence in ways which does not match my intent. I've changed this to: """ In all cases where pm_runtime_get[_sync]() is called, the code makes use of the device immediately after the call. This means that we should always use pm_runtime_get_sync(). """ Regards, Hans
