Hi Biju,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:23 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx>
> > On 25.06.2024 18:53, Biju Das wrote:
> > >> From: Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> pm_runtime_get_sync() may return with error. In case it returns with
> > >> error
> > >> dev->power.usage_count needs to be decremented.
> > >> dev->pm_runtime_resume_and_get()
> > >> takes care of this. Thus use it.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> - pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> > >> + ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > >> + if (ret) {
> > >> + dev_err(dev, riic_rpm_err_msg);
> > >
> > > As at the moment we don't know how to reproduce this error condition
> > > Can we use WARN_ON_ONCE() instead to catch detailed error condition here??
> >
> > [1] states "So, naturally, use of WARN_ON() is also now discouraged much of the time". I've go with
> > dev_err() or something similar.
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE() should be ok I guess as people are using for printing this info only once??
>
> Currently we don't know how to trigger pm_runtime_resume_and_get() error
> condition in our setup using a testapp and we are expecting an error may
> happen in future. If at all there is an error in future, we need detailed
> error info so that we can handle it and fix the bug.
On Renesas systems, pm_runtime_resume_and_get() never fails.
That's the reason why originally we didn't care to check the return
value of pm_runtime_get_sync().
The various janitors disagreed, causing cascaded changes all over
the place...
IMHO, WARN_ON_ONCE() is definitely overkill, only bloating the code.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
