On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:54:05AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:42:48AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> > If you agree with the current approach, I can send a V2 with Tomasz's
> > suggestion to remove the ifdefs and use __maybe_unused instead.
>
> I think the suspend callback should have something like:
>
> if (is_still_enabled) {
> /*
> * The consumer didn't stop us, so refuse to suspend.
> */
> dev_err(dev, "The consumer didn't stop us, so refuse to suspend.\n");
> return -EBUSY;
> }
>
> This way there are no bad surprises if the pwm is suspended before its
> consumer and it's obvious what is missing.
Something that just occurred to me: perhaps as part of pwm_get() we
should track where we were being requested from so that we could give
hints in situations like this as to where the consumer is that forgot
to suspend the PWM.
I suppose we already have pwm_device.label to help with this, but
perhaps we could improve things if we stored __builtin_return_address
during pwm_get() to help users pinpoint where they need to look.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
