Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] clk: qcom: lpass-sc7180: Disentangle the two clock devices

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-10-14 15:28:58)
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 3:10 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-10-14 14:05:22)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> > > index abcf36006926..48d370e2108e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> > > @@ -356,12 +356,48 @@ static const struct qcom_cc_desc lpass_audio_hm_sc7180_desc = {
> > >         .num_gdscs = ARRAY_SIZE(lpass_audio_hm_sc7180_gdscs),
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +static void lpass_pm_runtime_disable(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +       pm_runtime_disable(data);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void lapss_pm_clk_destroy(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +       pm_clk_destroy(data);
> > > +}
> >
> > Why are these helpers added again? And do we even need them? Can't we
> > just pass pm_runtime_disable or pm_clk_destroy to the
> > devm_add_action_or_reset() second parameter?
> 
> Unfortunately, we can't due to the C specification.  Take a look at
> all the other users of devm_add_action_or_reset() and they all have
> pretty much the same stupid thing. 

Ok, but we don't need two of the same functions, right?

> ...actually, do we even need the runtime_disable in the error path?
> When the dev goes away does it matter if you left pm_runtime enabled
> on it?
> 

I don't know. The device isn't destroyed but maybe when the driver is
unbound it resets the runtime PM counters?