On 5 Apr 2019, at 17:04, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/5/19 2:26 AM, Jan Kotas wrote:
There was a patch submitted on 3/28 by Srinivas Kandagatla who suggested an alternate solution for exactly the same code.
ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
- if (ret < 0)
+ if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(slave->bus->dev)) {
+ ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(slave->bus->dev);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
I am far from an expert on pm_runtime but Srinivas' solution looks more elegant to me.
Hello Pierre,
Please take a look at this patch, that was my inspiration:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-June/031930.html
I also took a look, and it seems the value returned byBut not checking seems careless at best...
pm_runtime_get_syncis simply ignored in a lot of places,
so checking its value may be excessive.