gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
Quoted 82 lines · David Cohen
Quoted 81 lines · Felipe Balbi
Quoted 79 lines · David Cohen
Quoted 66 lines · xinhui.pan
Quoted 64 lines · David Cohen
Quoted 47 lines · Felipe Balbi
Quoted 38 lines · David Cohen
Quoted 28 lines · Felipe Balbi
Quoted 16 lines · xinhui.pan
From: "xinhui.pan" <[email protected]>
intel_gpio_runtime_idleshould return correct error code if it do fail. make it more correct even though-EBUSYis the most possible return value.Signed-off-by bo.he <[email protected]>Signed-off-by xinhui.pan <[email protected]>--- drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c +0
-0drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = { · line 400
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c +3
-1@@ -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:
Quoted 4 lines
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 :)
---
commit45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204aQuoted 7 lines
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> Date: Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
---We won't return 0 from here.
Quoted 7 lines
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.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Br, David
hi ,David & Balbi
I checked several drivers yesterday to see how they usepm_schedule_suspend
then found one bug in i2c. Also I noticed gpio.
I think returning a correct error code is important.So I change-EBUSYto *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.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
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.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Signature · 2 lines
-- balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Xinhui,
Quoted 7 lines
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
PATCH v2 1/1 gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback
From: "xinhui.pan" <[email protected]>
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.
--- drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c +2 -2
@@ -369,8 +369,8 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle (struct device *dev) { -pm_schedule_suspend (dev,500 ); -return -EBUSY ; +int err =pm_schedule_suspend (dev,500 ); +return err ?: -EBUSY ; }static const struct dev_pm_ops intel_gpio_pm_ops = {
Signature · 1 line
1.8.4.2
Quoted 9 lines · David Cohen
From: "xinhui.pan" <[email protected]>
intel_gpio_runtime_idleshould return correct error code if it do fail. make it more correct even though-EBUSYis the most possible return value.Signed-off-by bo.he <[email protected]>Signed-off-by xinhui.pan <[email protected]>Signed-off-by David Cohen <[email protected]>Cc Felibe Balbi <[email protected]>
Quoted 22 lines
--- drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c +2
-2@@ -369,8 +369,8 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle (struct device *dev) { -pm_schedule_suspend (dev,500 ); -return -EBUSY ; +int err =pm_schedule_suspend (dev,500 ); +return err ?: -EBUSY ; }static const struct dev_pm_ops intel_gpio_pm_ops = {Signature · 1 line
1.8.4.2
Signature · 1 line
balbi
Quoted 9 lines · David Cohen
From: "xinhui.pan" <[email protected]>
intel_gpio_runtime_idleshould return correct error code if it do fail. make it more correct even though-EBUSYis the most possible return value.Signed-off-by bo.he <[email protected]>Signed-off-by xinhui.pan <[email protected]>Signed-off-by David Cohen <[email protected]>Cc Felibe Balbi <[email protected]>
Patch applied with Felipe's Reviewed-by tag.
Yours,
Linus Walleij