[expanding the audience a bit for more expertise]
Hello,
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:31:35PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> This aligns with [1] and converts the platform remove callback to
> .remove_new(), which returns void.
>
> [1]: commit a3afc5b10661 ("media: mtk_vcodec_dec_drv: Convert to
> platform remove callback returning void")
>
> Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <fshao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> index b753bf54ebd9..bd5743723da6 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> @@ -193,16 +193,14 @@ static int mtk_vdec_hw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +static void mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> -
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver mtk_vdec_driver = {
> .probe = mtk_vdec_hw_probe,
> - .remove = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> + .remove_new = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = "mtk-vdec-comp",
> .of_match_table = mtk_vdec_hw_match,
While the patch looks fine, I wonder if having a remove callback just to
do pm_runtime_disable() is worth keeping it. Doesn't the core care for
things like that? I grepped a bit around, device_unbind_cleanup() is
called after device_remove() which calls pm_runtime_reinit(). Does that
mean calling pm_runtime_disable in .remove() is useless? In that case,
you could just drop the .remove() callback.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
