linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT 3/6] serial: sh-sci: Move runtime PM enable to sci_probe

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

Message-ID: <7685c7a7-3bba-4709-bdb2-1dba22af9146@tuxon.dev>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 11:20:51 +0200
From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
 wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
 lethal@...ux-sh.org, g.liakhovetski@....de, groeck@...omium.org,
 mka@...omium.org, ulrich.hecht+renesas@...il.com,
 ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 3/6] serial: sh-sci: Move runtime PM enable to
 sci_probe_single()



On 19.12.2024 12:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 4:58 PM Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev> wrote:
>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
>>
>> Relocate the runtime PM enable operation to sci_probe_single(). This change
>> prepares the codebase for upcoming fixes.
>>
>> While at it, replace the existing logic with a direct call to
>> devm_pm_runtime_enable() and remove sci_cleanup_single(). The
>> devm_pm_runtime_enable() function automatically handles disabling runtime
>> PM during driver removal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c
>> @@ -3440,7 +3434,6 @@ static int sci_probe_single(struct platform_device *dev,
>>
>>         ret = uart_add_one_port(&sci_uart_driver, &sciport->port);
>>         if (ret) {
>> -               sci_cleanup_single(sciport);
>>                 return ret;
>>         }
> 
> Next line is:
> 
>     return 0;
> 
> so please just merge that into
> 
>     return uart_add_one_port(&sci_uart_driver, &sciport->port);
> 

You're right with these.

> Actually [PATCH 5/6] makes that change, but there is no reason not
> to do that here.

I remember I chose to keep it like this as I had the impression that if I
format the patches as proposed by you the 5/6 will just revert what I will
have been done in this patch. But I think I was wrong.

Thank you,
Claudiu

> 
> For the logical changes:
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
>