This thread became unreadable with interleaved top-posting, allow me
restate the options and ask PM folks what they think
On 7/25/19 6:40 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Not all platforms support runtime_pm for now, let's use runtime_pm
only when enabled.
Suggested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
index 5ad4109dc72f..0a45dc5713df 100644
--- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
@@ -332,12 +332,16 @@ 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);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ }
ret = sdw_transfer(slave->bus, &msg);
- pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);
+
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev))
+ pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);
This is option1: we explicitly test if pm_runtime is enabled before
calling _get_sync() and _put()
option2 (suggested by Jan Kotas): catch the -EACCESS error code
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
- if (ret < 0)
+ if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
return ret;
option3: ignore the return value as done in quite a few drivers
Are there any other options? I am personally surprised this is not
handled in the pm_runtime core, not sure why users need to test for this?
Thanks
Pierre
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
