On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:24:18AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > +fail: > > + if (enable) { > > + dev_err(dev, "Reverting channel%d enabling: %d\n", > > + channel, ret); > > This message is confusing. Something like "Failed to enable channel %d: > error %d" would be much better.
Will fix in v3. > > +fail_pm: > > + pm_runtime_disable(ina->hdev); > > + pm_runtime_set_suspended(ina->hdev); > > + for (i = 0; i < INA3221_NUM_CHANNELS; i++) > > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(ina->hdev); > > The count here doesn't match the count above if some channels > are disabled, or if the enable loop above aborted. > > > + /* Decrease the PM refcount */ > > + for (i = 0; i < INA3221_NUM_CHANNELS; i++) > > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(ina->hdev); > > > As above, this doesn't take disabled channels into account. Maybe that > doesn't matter; if so, there needs to be a comment indicating that > negative use counts don't matter. If that is the case, make sure that > this is acceptable use of the pm API (if it works but is not documented, > the PM core may change and complain about it at a later time). The API will stop decrease at 0. But I will see if I can explicitly loop a matched number, or at lest will mention this in comments. Thanks Nicolin
