[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <175602272525.419332.11059830322724662200.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:06:24 +0900
From: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>
To: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>,
Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
Waqar Hameed <waqar.hameed@...s.com>
Cc: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>,
kernel@...s.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] counter: ti-ecap-capture: Use devm_pm_runtime_enable()
On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 15:21:08 +0200, Waqar Hameed wrote:
> There is no need to register a manual `devm` action for
> `pm_runtime_disable()` when `devm_pm_runtime_enable()` exists. It does
> the same thing (but also calls `pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()`,
> which should be fine here).
>
> Moreover, when `devm_add_action_or_reset()` fails, it is due to a failed
> memory allocation and will thus return `-ENOMEM`. `dev_err_probe()`
> doesn't do anything when error is `-ENOMEM`. Therefore, the call to
> `dev_err_probe()` is useless. Note that `devm_pm_runtime_enable()` has a
> tail call to `devm_add_action_or_reset()` and thus returns that value.
> Therefore, replace `dev_err_probe()` with the returning value.
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] counter: ti-ecap-capture: Use devm_pm_runtime_enable()
commit: 51548c36b37d0e84bd43a5f20bcbc36f70e61c5a
Best regards,
--
William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists