On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:39:41PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/11/2017 08:30 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> +static int dw9714_open(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh)
> >> +{
> >> + struct dw9714_device *dw9714_dev = container_of(sd,
> >> + struct dw9714_device,
> >> + sd);
> >> + struct device *dev = &dw9714_dev->client->dev;
> >> + int rval;
> >> +
> >> + rval = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> >> + if (rval >= 0)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + pm_runtime_put(dev);
> >> + return rval;
> >>
> > nit: The typical coding style is to return early in case of a special
> > case and keep the common path linear, i.e.
> >
> > rval = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > if (rval < 0) {
> > pm_runtime_put(dev);
> > return rval;
> > }
>
> Aren't we supposed to call pm_runtime_put() only when corresponding
> pm_runtime_get() succeeds? I think the pm_runtime_put() call above
> is not needed.
pm_runtime_get() increments the usage_count independently of whether it
succeeded. See __pm_runtime_resume().
--
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
