[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gwkKa+AYgOwydzsKjo=_M56t88PwVo7R+fe-53abAdVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:29:36 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, theo.lebrun@...tlin.com,
Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: wakeup: Add a missing return case in init_wakeup
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:18 PM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 14, 2024 at 15:01:36 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The device_wakeup_disable call can return an error if no dev exists
> > > however this was being ignored. Catch this return value and propagate it
> > > onward in device_init_wakeup.
> >
> > Why does this matter to the callers of device_init_wakeup()?
>
> If atall !dev->power.can_wakeup then the caller should know something is
> funny right?
What would the caller do with this information?
They attempted to disable wakeup on a device that doesn't exist or is
not wake-capable, and so what?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists