Hi Laurent, > > > > I wonder how many bugs we have today, and how many bugs will keep > > appearing in the future, due to this historical design mistake :-( > > Good question. It's hard to say if this is a design mistake (some use of this API does not check its return value and expects it always to increment the usage counter). But it does make developers misuse it easier. > > > > This change looks good to me, but we also need a similar change in the > > vsp1_device_get() function if I'm not mistaken. Could you combine both > > in the same patch ? > Thank you for your advice! I think you are right and I will fix this in the next version of patch. > And actually, after fixing vsp1_device_get(), we should replace the > pm_runtime_get_sync() call here with vsp1_device_get(), and the > pm_runtime_put_sync() below with vsp1_device_put(), so there would be no > need to call pm_runtime_put_sync() manually in the error path here. > The parameter type of vsp1_device_get() and vsp1_device_put() is "struct vsp1_device". If we want to use these two wrappers, we need to adjust their parameter type to "struct platform_device" or "struct device", which may lead to errors in other callers. Maybe we should leave it as it is. Regards, Dinghao
