On 19.12.2024 12:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 4:58 PM Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Relocate the runtime PM enable operation to sci_probe_single(). This change
>> prepares the codebase for upcoming fixes.
>>
>> While at it, replace the existing logic with a direct call to
>> devm_pm_runtime_enable() and remove sci_cleanup_single(). The
>> devm_pm_runtime_enable() function automatically handles disabling runtime
>> PM during driver removal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c
>> @@ -3440,7 +3434,6 @@ static int sci_probe_single(struct platform_device *dev,
>>
>> ret = uart_add_one_port(&sci_uart_driver, &sciport->port);
>> if (ret) {
>> - sci_cleanup_single(sciport);
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> Next line is:
>
> return 0;
>
> so please just merge that into
>
> return uart_add_one_port(&sci_uart_driver, &sciport->port);
>
You're right with these.
> Actually [PATCH 5/6] makes that change, but there is no reason not
> to do that here.
I remember I chose to keep it like this as I had the impression that if I
format the patches as proposed by you the 5/6 will just revert what I will
have been done in this patch. But I think I was wrong.
Thank you,
Claudiu
>
> For the logical changes:
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
