On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 01:28:53PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:05:26 +0200 > Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > Right, a resume failure is a pretty big issue and it's not really clear > > how to to even handle that generally. But at remove() time you don't > > have much choice but to go on and release resource anyway. > > > > So unless actually implementing some error handling too, using > > pm_runtime_sync_get() without checking for errors is still preferred > > over pm_runtime_resume_and_get(). That is > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync(); > > /* cleanup */ > > pm_runtime_disable() > > pm_runtime_put_noidle(); > > > > is better than: > > > > ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(); > > /* cleanup */ > > pm_runtime_disable(); > > if (ret == 0) > > pm_runtime_put_noidle(); > > > > unless you also start doing something ret. > > Perhaps the best would be to use, instead: > > pm_runtime_get_noresume(); > /* cleanup */ > pm_runtime_disable() > pm_runtime_put_noidle(); > pm_runtime_set_suspended(); > > I mean, at least for my eyes, it doesn't make sense to do a PM > resume during driver's removal/unbind time. The cleanup bit above would depend on the device being resumed so using pm_runtime_get_noresume() makes little sense. Some drivers disable clocks etc explicitly at remove instead of relying on pm runtime for that and then they'd use the above scheme (plus explicit pm_runtime_set_suspended()). Johan
