Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
Hi Xinhui, > Hi all, > I am xinhui pan. Thanks to the VPN problem, I can't access Intel's > network. So I have to send you this email by personal email address. > I am on Spring Festival vacation until Feb 9th. Sorry for that. > Your suggestion is very nice,thanks :) > I will generate V2 patch ASAP when my vocation is over. Thanks for > all your help. Since I got your ack you agree with this change, I can resend on behalf of you. Just enjoy your holidays :) Br, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
Hi Xinhui, Hi all, I am xinhui pan. Thanks to the VPN problem, I can't access Intel's network. So I have to send you this email by personal email address. I am on Spring Festival vacation until Feb 9th. Sorry for that. Your suggestion is very nice,thanks :) I will generate V2 patch ASAP when my vocation is over. Thanks for all your help. Since I got your ack you agree with this change, I can resend on behalf of you. Just enjoy your holidays :) Br, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:06, David Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> From: "xinhui.pan"
>
> intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
> fail.
> make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
> value.
>
> Signed-off-by: bo.he
> Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
> intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
>>>
>>> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
>>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
>>>
>>> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
>>> ---
>>>
>>> We won't return 0 from here.
>>
>> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
>>
>> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
>> return -EBUSY;
>> }
>
> That's how it is currently :)
>
> But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
>
> Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
>
> Br, David
>
hi ,David & Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
>>>
>>> In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
>>> error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
>>>
>>> I keep my ack here.
>>
>> fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
>>
>> return err ?: -EBUSY;
>
> Agreed :)
> Xinhui, could we have this suggestion in your patch?
>
> Br, David
>
Hi all,
I am xinhui pan. Thanks to the VPN problem, I can't access Intel's network.
So I have to send you this email by personal email address.
I am on Spring Festival vacation until Feb 9th. Sorry for that.
Your suggestion is very nice,thanks :)
I will generate V2 patch ASAP when my vocation is over. Thanks for all your
help.
>>
>> --
>> balbi
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:06, David Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
hi ,David Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
return err ?: -EBUSY;
Agreed :)
Xinhui, could we have this suggestion in your patch?
Br, David
Hi all,
I am xinhui pan. Thanks to the VPN problem, I can't access Intel's network.
So I have to send you this email by personal email address.
I am on Spring Festival vacation until Feb 9th. Sorry for that.
Your suggestion is very nice,thanks :)
I will generate V2 patch ASAP when my vocation is over. Thanks for all your
help.
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > >
> > > 于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > > > From: "xinhui.pan"
> > > >
> > > > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
> > > > fail.
> > > > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
> > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > > > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
> > > > intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
> > > >
> > > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
> > >
> > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > }
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
> > > >>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > >>> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We won't return 0 from here.
> > > >>
> > > >> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
> > > >>
> > > >> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > >> {
> > > >>pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > >>return -EBUSY;
> > > >> }
> > > >
> > > > That's how it is currently :)
> > > >
> > > > But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> > > > of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> > > > perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
> > > >
> > > > Br, David
> > > >
> > > hi ,David & Balbi
> > > I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
> > > pm_schedule_suspend
> > > then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
> > > I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
> > > to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
> >
> > In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
> > error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
> >
> > I keep my ack here.
>
> fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
>
> return err ?: -EBUSY;
Agreed :)
Xinhui, could we have this suggestion in your patch?
Br, David
>
> --
> balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> >
> > 于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > > From: "xinhui.pan"
> > >
> > > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
> > > fail.
> > > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
> > > value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
> > > intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
> > >
> > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return err;
> > > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
> >
> > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > }
> > >>>
> > >>> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
> > >>>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
> > >>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > >>> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
> > >>>
> > >>> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
> > >>> ---
> > >>>
> > >>> We won't return 0 from here.
> > >>
> > >> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
> > >>
> > >> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > >> {
> > >> pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > >> return -EBUSY;
> > >> }
> > >
> > > That's how it is currently :)
> > >
> > > But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> > > of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> > > perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
> > >
> > > Br, David
> > >
> > hi ,David & Balbi
> > I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
> > pm_schedule_suspend
> > then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
> > I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
> > to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
>
> In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
> error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
>
> I keep my ack here.
fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
return err ?: -EBUSY;
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
>
> 于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > From: "xinhui.pan"
> >
> > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
> > value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
> > intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
> >
> > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > return -EBUSY;
>
> wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> }
> >>>
> >>> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
> >>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >>> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
> >>>
> >>> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> We won't return 0 from here.
> >>
> >> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
> >>
> >> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> >> {
> >>pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> >>return -EBUSY;
> >> }
> >
> > That's how it is currently :)
> >
> > But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> > of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> > perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
> >
> > Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
> >
> > Br, David
> >
> hi ,David & Balbi
> I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use pm_schedule_suspend
> then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
> I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
> to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
Br, David
> >>
> >> just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> balbi
> >
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
hi ,David Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
Br, David
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
hi ,David Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
return err ?: -EBUSY;
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12:32AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:23:40PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do
fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
hi ,David Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use
pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
In my experience, when I'm using fancy things like lauterbach a proper
error code may save couple of minutes in my life :)
I keep my ack here.
fair enough, sorry for the noise ;-) It could still be simplified a bit:
return err ?: -EBUSY;
Agreed :)
Xinhui, could we have this suggestion in your patch?
Br, David
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> From: "xinhui.pan"
>
> intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
>
> Signed-off-by: bo.he
> Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops
> = {
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
>>>
>>> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
>>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
>>>
>>> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
>>> ---
>>>
>>> We won't return 0 from here.
>>
>> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
>>
>> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
>> return -EBUSY;
>> }
>
> That's how it is currently :)
>
> But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
> of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
> perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
>
> Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
>
> Br, David
>
hi ,David & Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
>>
>> just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
>>
>> --
>> balbi
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > > > From: "xinhui.pan"
> > > >
> > > > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > > > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
> > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > > > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
> > > > intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
> > > >
> > > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
> > >
> > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > }
> >
> > The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
> >
> > ---
> > commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
> > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
> >
> > PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
> > ---
> >
> > We won't return 0 from here.
>
> so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> return -EBUSY;
> }
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
>
> just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
>
> --
> balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > > From: "xinhui.pan"
> > >
> > > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops
> > > = {
> > >
> > > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return err;
> > > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
> >
> > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > }
>
> The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
>
> ---
> commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
>
> PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
> ---
>
> We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > From: "xinhui.pan"
> >
> > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: bo.he
> > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops =
> > {
> >
> > static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > return -EBUSY;
>
> wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> }
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
Br, David
>
> cheers
>
> --
> balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> From: "xinhui.pan"
>
> intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
>
> Signed-off-by: bo.he
> Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
>
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> - pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
cheers
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
Hi, Thanks for the patch :) On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote: > From: "xinhui.pan" > > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail. > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value. > > Signed-off-by: bo.he > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan Acked-by: David Cohen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
From: "xinhui.pan"
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
}
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
Hi, Thanks for the patch :) On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote: From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail. make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value. Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com Acked-by: David Cohen david.a.co...@linux.intel.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
cheers
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops =
{
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
Br, David
cheers
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops
= {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return
value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops
intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
于 2014年01月29日 08:13, David Cohen 写道:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:12:06PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0800, David Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
From: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
Signed-off-by: bo.he bo...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan xinhuix@intel.com
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
@@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops
= {
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
- pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
return -EBUSY;
wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
}
The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)
---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200
PM / Runtime: Rework the runtime idle helper routine
---
We won't return 0 from here.
so you never want to return 0, why don't you, then:
static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
{
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
return -EBUSY;
}
That's how it is currently :)
But this patch is making the function to return a different code in case
of error. IMHO there is not much fuctional gain with it, but I see
perhaps one extra info for tracing during development.
Anyway, I'll let Xinhui to do further comment since he's the author.
Br, David
hi ,David Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they use pm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change -EBUSY
to *err*. To be honest,current code works well.
just like drivers/tty/serial/mfd.c::serial_hsu_runtime_idle() is doing ?
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
