Hi Geert, On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:39:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Dinghao, > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:03 AM <dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > On Renesas SoCs, I believe these can only fail if there's something > seriously wrong, which means the system could never have gotten this far > in the boot sequence anyway. That's why I tend not to check the result > of pm_runtime_get_sync() at all (on drivers for Renesas SoCs). There are lots of return paths from rpm_resume() that return an error, more than just rpm_callback(). Do you consider that none of them are valid errors that drivers need to handle ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
