On 2024-05-08 02:55:44 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +static int rtsn_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
>
>
> > + pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
>
>
> > +static int rtsn_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct rtsn_private *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +
> > + unregister_netdev(priv->ndev);
> > + rtsn_mdio_free(priv);
> > + rcar_gen4_ptp_unregister(priv->ptp_priv);
> > + rtsn_change_mode(priv, OCR_OPC_DISABLE);
> > + netif_napi_del(&priv->napi);
> > +
> > + pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
>
> These appear to be the only two places you do any pm_ stuff. So it
> seems pointless. Maybe delete this for the moment, and come back later
> to add proper runtime power management?
I agree enable more PM stuff is a good candidate to follow initial
entablement. But these pm_ calls are not pointless, I still need to deal
with power. If I remove the pm_ calls things starts to fail. Maybe I can
substitute the pm_ calls with something else, but I rather keep the pm_
stuff as adding suspend/resume support is high on the list of things to
do. And reworking this now just to restore it later seems pointless as
more PM is the way forward.
>
> Andrew
--
Kind Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
