On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 24-09-18 12:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:58:42AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Thanks. > > I'm just wondering if we can leave pwm_lpss_apply() untouched and use a new helper for ->remove() and ->get_state() only. > > The idea was to have a single place doing the pm_runtime_get() and > pm_runtime_put() calls. Leaving pwm_lpss_apply() as is and this not > using this helper there is fine with me, but then we might just as > well directly do the [un]ref directly in >remove() and ->get_state() > as well, that is just 2 lines (instead of 1) for each. > > I'm not against leaving pwm_lpss_apply() as is, but then we might > just as well drop this patch, so do you want to drop this patch > for v2 ? I would prefer not to change ->apply(). So, please, modify (I guess we still need some pm calls in ->remove()). Perhaps it would also require Fixes tag to be applied. > > Also do you have any remarks on the patch adding the get_stage > callback before I send out a v2? No, looks sane, just same comment as above per pm calls. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
