Re: [PATCH 3/4] soundwire: bus: check if pm runtime is enabled before calling

[Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/28/19 9:41 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Check the device has pm runtime enabled before returning error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> index 1cbfedfc20ef..101562a6fb0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
> @@ -327,9 +327,11 @@ int sdw_nread(struct sdw_slave *slave, u32 addr, size_t count, u8 *val)
>   	if (ret < 0)
>   		return ret;
>   
> -	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		return ret;
> +	if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
> +		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);

Is this an recommended/accepted sequence in kernel circles? I did a 
quick git grep and don't see anyone using this sort of tests.


> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
>   
>   	ret = sdw_transfer(slave->bus, &msg);
>   	pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);

and the weird thing is that you don't test for the put() case?

> @@ -355,9 +357,11 @@ int sdw_nwrite(struct sdw_slave *slave, u32 addr, size_t count, u8 *val)
>   	if (ret < 0)
>   		return ret;
>   
> -	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		return ret;
> +	if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
> +		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
>   
>   	ret = sdw_transfer(slave->bus, &msg);
>   	pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel