On 10/29/2015 03:57 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
there's no need to call pm_runtime_get_sync()
followed by pm_runtime_put(). We should, instead,
just call pm_runtime_put_sync() and pm_runtime_disable().

Sry, but why do we need to call pm_runtime_put[_sync]() here?

My be just pm_runtime_disable() will be ok?



Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com>
---
  drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c | 11 +----------
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
index 69c1a95b0615..64318fcfacf2 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
@@ -554,16 +554,7 @@ free_master:

  static int ti_qspi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
  {
-       struct ti_qspi *qspi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
-       int ret;
-
-       ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(qspi->dev);
-       if (ret < 0) {
-               dev_err(qspi->dev, "pm_runtime_get_sync() failed\n");
-               return ret;
-       }
-
-       pm_runtime_put(qspi->dev);
+       pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
        pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);

        return 0;



--
regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to