On Thu, 2019-03-28 at 09:55 -0400, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 3/28/19 9:41 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
Check the device has pm runtime enabled before returning error.
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org
drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c index 1cbfedfc20ef..101562a6fb0d 100644 --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c @@ -327,9 +327,11 @@ int sdw_nread(struct sdw_slave *slave, u32 addr, size_t count, u8 *val) if (ret < 0) return ret;
- ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);Is this an recommended/accepted sequence in kernel circles? I did a quick git grep and don't see anyone using this sort of tests.
Hi Srinivas/Pierre,
Sorry for the delayed reply.
The only instance where I have seen the pm_runtime_get_sync() fail is not because pm_runtime was disabled. But it is because the power is powered off when trying to do a pm_runtime_get_sync().
I'm not very familiar with the code in soundwire yet, but is it possible that the pm_domain supplier has powered off the soundwire device and would cause a failure in pm_runtime_get_sync()?
Thanks, Ranjani
if (ret < 0)return ret;}
ret = sdw_transfer(slave->bus, &msg); pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);
and the weird thing is that you don't test for the put() case?
@@ -355,9 +357,11 @@ int sdw_nwrite(struct sdw_slave *slave, u32 addr, size_t count, u8 *val) if (ret < 0) return ret;
- ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);if (ret < 0)return ret;}
ret = sdw_transfer(slave->bus, &msg); pm_runtime_put(slave->bus->dev);
Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel