On 3/2/23 05:16, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 3/1/23 23:49, Mike Looijmans wrote:
...
...
+static int ads1100_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct iio_dev *indio_dev =
i2c_get_clientdata(to_i2c_client(dev));
+ struct ads1100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
+
+ ads1100_set_config_bits(data, ADS1100_CFG_SC,
ADS1100_SINGLESHOT);
+ regulator_disable(data->reg_vdd);
Wrong devm / non-devm ordering.
Don't understand your remark, can you explain further please?
devm / non-devm ordering would be related to the "probe" function. As
far as I can tell, I'm not allocating resources after the devm calls.
And the "remove" is empty.
Strictly speaking we need to unregister the IIO device before
disabling the regulator, otherwise there is a small window where the
IIO device still exists, but doesn't work anymore. This is a very
theoretical scenario though.
You are lucky :) There is a new function
`devm_regulator_get_enable()`[1], which will manage the
regulator_disable() for you. Using that will also reduce the
boilerplate in `probe()` a bit
- Lars
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/904383/
Sorry, just saw that Andy's comment was on the suspend() function, not
remove(). In that case there is of course no need for any devm things.
But still a good idea to use `devm_regulator_get_enable()` in probe for
the boiler plate.
