* Liam Breck <liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [170130 16:02]:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Liam Breck <liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [170126 15:57]:
> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > @@ -1430,10 +1473,20 @@ static int bq24190_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >> > static int bq24190_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >> > {
> >> > struct bq24190_dev_info *bdi = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >> > + int error;
> >> > +
> >> > + error = pm_runtime_get_sync(bdi->dev);
> >> > + if (error < 0) {
> >> > + dev_warn(bdi->dev, "pm_runtime_get failed: %i\n", error);
> >> > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(bdi->dev);
> >> > + }
> >> >
> >> > - pm_runtime_get_sync(bdi->dev);
> >> > bq24190_register_reset(bdi);
> >> > - pm_runtime_put_sync(bdi->dev);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (!error) {
> >> > + pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(bdi->dev);
> >> > + pm_runtime_put_sync(bdi->dev);
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> Should put_sync() be called before dont_use_autosuspend(), as in probe()?
> >
> > Yeah good to have them paired. With pm_runtime_put_noidle() we're
> > active on error, so we can just call pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
> > and pm_runtime_put_sync() unconditionally.
>
> I meant should the two pm_runtime_* calls above be flipped, so
> put_sync() is first. That's the order in probe()
Oh I see yeah ideally yes.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
