On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:43 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [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.
Maybe just switch to devm_pm_runtime_enable() on the enable side?
ChenYu
