On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 09:35:50PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 09:43:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 08:23:41PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > > Add runtime power management to the device.
...
> > > + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = __bme680_read_raw(indio_dev, chan, val, val2, mask);
> > > + pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> > > + pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> >
> > Side note: as long as idle method is not defined (NULL) the above dance is
> > already taken into account in the regular put.
> Thanks again for the review! Indeed by looking at the code a bit, it
> looks like the suspend callback is being called if the idle one is not
> found. But I have seen this dance that you mention much more often in
> the IIO that's why I used it. We can see what Jonathan has to say as
> well, I think what you propose, simplifies things.
Yeah, this is cargo cult by many people (including me :-) who missed that
detail. If any, this can be addressed in a different series.
...
> > > +static int bme680_buffer_preenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct bme680_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > + struct device *dev = regmap_get_device(data->regmap);
> > > + int ret;
> >
> > > + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > Either this is broken (if the above can return positive codes), or can be
> > replaced with direct return:
> >
> > return pm_...
> >
> > (but I believe it's the former and you wanted something like if (ret < 0)
> > there).
> >
> > > +}
>
> Well, pm_runtime_resume_and_get() looks like it returns 0 on success and
> negative value on error so I think the if (ret) is correct, no? But I
> agree with you that it can be simplified as you proposed.
Please, go ahead with the simplification!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
