Hi Uwe,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:51:37AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 02:39:55AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 06:54:27PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > pm_runtime_resume_and_get() already drops the runtime PM usage counter
> > > in the error case. So a call to pm_runtime_put_sync() can be dropped.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I wonder if checkpatch should warn about usage of pm_runtime_get_sync().
>
> It should not warn in general. There are cases where
> pm_runtime_get_sync() is the right function to use. See for example
Sure, the function most likely has some valid use cases (otherwise it
should just be removed), but I think those are are a minority. I was
just thinking out loud anyway.
> commit aec488051633 ("crypto: stm32 - Properly handle pm_runtime_get
> failing").
I don't know much about that device, but wouldn't the best option be to
avoid resuming the device at remove time ? In any case, that's getting
out of topic for the sn65dsi86 :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
