linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] ASoC: arizona-jack: Use arizona->dev for runtime-pm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5c20be27-b083-0303-f29f-4ce8502178d3@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 14:56:47 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] ASoC: arizona-jack: Use arizona->dev for
 runtime-pm

Hi,

On 1/22/21 10:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:03 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/21 1:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:06 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Can you elaborate switchings from get() to get_sync() in few places
>>
>> Sorry, those 2 changes really should have been in a separate commit.
>> I've put the 2 get -> get_sync() changed in their own commit now
>> with the following commit-msg:
>>
>> """
>> extcon: arizona: Always use pm_runtime_get_sync() when we need the device to be awake
>>
>> Before this commit the extcon-arizona code was mixing pm_runtime_get()
>> and pm_runtime_get_sync() in different places. In all cases where
>> either function is called we make use of the device immediately
> 
> called and we

That changes the meaning of the sentence in ways which does not match
my intent. I've changed this to:

"""
In all cases where pm_runtime_get[_sync]() is called, the code
makes use of the device immediately after the call.
This means that we should always use pm_runtime_get_sync().
"""

Regards,

Hans