linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 19/23] pmdomain: imx: gpcv2: Discard pm_runtime

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: <CAPDyKFrgXG5X-y0teE-wVvqaeNepStMN3=0M4zkZs8Kb88U22A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 16:51:26 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, imx@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 19/23] pmdomain: imx: gpcv2: Discard pm_runtime_put()
 return value

On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 at 21:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Passing pm_runtime_put() return value to the callers is not particularly
> useful.
>
> Returning an error code from pm_runtime_put() merely means that it has
> not queued up a work item to check whether or not the device can be
> suspended and there are many perfectly valid situations in which that
> can happen, like after writing "on" to the devices' runtime PM "control"
> attribute in sysfs for one example.
>
> Accordingly, update imx_pgc_domain_suspend() to simply discard the
> return value of pm_runtime_put() and always return success to the
> caller.
>
> This will facilitate a planned change of the pm_runtime_put() return
> type to void in the future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Applied for next, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe


> ---
>
> This patch is part of a series, but it doesn't depend on anything else
> in that series.  The last patch in the series depends on it.
>
> It can be applied by itself and if you decide to do so, please let me
> know.
>
> Otherwise, an ACK or equivalent will be appreciated, but also the lack
> of specific criticism will be eventually regarded as consent.
>
> ---
>  drivers/pmdomain/imx/gpcv2.c |    4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/pmdomain/imx/gpcv2.c
> +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/imx/gpcv2.c
> @@ -1420,7 +1420,9 @@ static int imx_pgc_domain_suspend(struct
>
>  static int imx_pgc_domain_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -       return pm_runtime_put(dev);
> +       pm_runtime_put(dev);
> +
> +       return 0;
>  }
>  #endif
>
>
>
>