[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd84c12f-277d-27e7-3727-4592e530e4ed@web.de>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 16:06:11 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: magnetometer: ak8974: Fix runtime PM imbalance on
error in ak8974_probe()
> When devm_regmap_init_i2c() returns an error code, a pairing
> runtime PM usage counter decrement is needed to keep the
> counter balanced.
How do you think about to replace the word “pairing” by “corresponding”?
> For error paths after ak8974_set_power(),
> ak8974_detect() and ak8974_reset(), things are the same.
Will an other wording become more helpful than this information?
> However, When iio_triggered_buffer_setup() returns an error
> code, there will be two PM usgae counter decrements.
Please avoid two typos in this sentence.
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
…
+++ b/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8974.c
…
@@ -854,7 +856,6 @@ static int ak8974_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
…
Can a source code variant like the following make sense
for a more complete exception handling?
power_off:
ak8974_set_power(ak8974, AK8974_PWR_OFF);
put_pm:
pm_runtime_put_noidle(&i2c->dev);
pm_runtime_disable(&i2c->dev);
disable_regulator:
regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(ak8974->regs), ak8974->regs);
return ret;
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists