On 31.01.2024 15:16, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/31/24 03:00, claudiu beznea wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31.01.2024 12:41, Biju Das wrote:
>>> Hi Claudiu,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:36 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] watchdog: rzg2l_wdt: Check return status of
>>>> pm_runtime_put()
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Biju,
>>>>
>>>> On 31.01.2024 12:32, Biju Das wrote:
>>>>> Hi Claudiu,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:20 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH v2 04/11] watchdog: rzg2l_wdt: Check return status of
>>>>>> pm_runtime_put()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pm_runtime_put() may return an error code. Check its return status.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Along with it the rzg2l_wdt_set_timeout() function was updated to
>>>>>> propagate the result of rzg2l_wdt_stop() to its caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 2cbc5cd0b55f ("watchdog: Add Watchdog Timer driver for
>>>>>> RZ/G2L")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>> - propagate the return code of rzg2l_wdt_stop() to it's callers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c index d87d4f50180c..7bce093316c4
>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>>>> @@ -144,9 +144,13 @@ static int rzg2l_wdt_start(struct
>>>>>> watchdog_device
>>>>>> *wdev) static int rzg2l_wdt_stop(struct watchdog_device *wdev) {
>>>>>> struct rzg2l_wdt_priv *priv = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdev);
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rzg2l_wdt_reset(priv);
>>>>>> - pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>>>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we need to check the return code? So far we didn't hit this
>>>> condition.
>>>>> If you are planning to do it, then just
>>>>>
>>>>> return pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>>>
>>>> pm_runtime_put() may return 1 if the device is suspended (which is not
>>>> considered error) as explained here:
>>>
>>> Oops, I missed that discussion. Out of curiosity,
>>> What watchdog framework/consumer is going to do with a
>>> Non-error return value of 1?
>>
>> Looking at this:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c#L809
>>
>> it seems that the positive values are not considered errors thus, indeed,
>> we may return directly:
>>
>> return pm_runtime_put();
>>
>> Guenter,
>>
>> With this (and previous discussion from [1]), are you OK to change it like:
>>
>> return pm_runtime_put();
>>
>
> Instead of looking at the source, I would kindly ask you to look at the API.
OK, I'll keep the patch as is. Thank you for your input.
Claudiu Beznea
>
> Guenter
>
