linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] iio: light: ltr390: Implement runtime PM support

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: <20250913131724.111fa939@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 13:17:24 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com>, anshulusr@...il.com,
 dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com, andy@...nel.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] iio: light: ltr390: Implement runtime PM support

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 23:24:22 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:12 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 18:06:32 +0530
> > Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com> wrote:  
> 
> > > Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.
> > > I do have a small request regarding the review process. Over the past 3–4
> > > versions,most of the comments have been about fixing indentations and
> > > improving code readability. I would kindly request if it would be possible
> > > to consolidate such cosmetic comments into a single review round.
> > >
> > > I completely understand that incremental feedback makes sense when the code
> > > is actively changing, but if the changes are minimal, spreading out minor
> > > suggestions over multiple review cycles tends to unnecessarily increase the
> > > turnaround time.
> > >
> > > Your support in this would help me address the comments more efficiently.  
> 
> I can't always see _all_ problems at once, I am not a robot. I will
> try my best, though.
> 
> ...
> 
> > Andy, if you are fine with the explanation I'll tidy up the minor stuff
> > whilst applying.  
> 
> Yes, I am fine, go with it, thanks!
> 

Applied with this diff;
diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c b/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
index 2d8449aeab18..a2b804e9089a 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
@@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ static int ltr390_do_read_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_device,
 }
 
 static int ltr390_read_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_device,
-                          struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val,
-                          int *val2, long mask)
+                          struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
+                          int *val, int *val2, long mask)
 {
        int ret;
        struct ltr390_data *data = iio_priv(iio_device);
@@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ static void ltr390_powerdown(void *priv)
                        dev_err(dev, "failed to disable interrupts\n");
 
                data->irq_enabled = false;
-               pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&data->client->dev);
+               pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
        }
 
        ret = regmap_clear_bits(data->regmap, LTR390_MAIN_CTRL, LTR390_SENSOR_ENABLE);

Thanks,

Jonathan