From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:22:58 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: lpss: Add pwm_lpss_get_put_runtime_pm helper function Message-ID: <20180924132258.GO15943@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20180911174533.4484-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20180911174533.4484-2-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20180924091653.GF15943@smile.fi.intel.com> <88a8e7b3-5c8e-2783-8972-1a1e495d3f28@redhat.com> <20180924100505.GK15943@smile.fi.intel.com> <658bf04b-5040-5eb4-6492-3ffad778e415@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <658bf04b-5040-5eb4-6492-3ffad778e415@redhat.com> List-ID: To: Hans de Goede Cc: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 24-09-18 12:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:58:42AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Thanks. > > I'm just wondering if we can leave pwm_lpss_apply() untouched and use a new helper for ->remove() and ->get_state() only. > > The idea was to have a single place doing the pm_runtime_get() and > pm_runtime_put() calls. Leaving pwm_lpss_apply() as is and this not > using this helper there is fine with me, but then we might just as > well directly do the [un]ref directly in >remove() and ->get_state() > as well, that is just 2 lines (instead of 1) for each. > > I'm not against leaving pwm_lpss_apply() as is, but then we might > just as well drop this patch, so do you want to drop this patch > for v2 ? I would prefer not to change ->apply(). So, please, modify (I guess we still need some pm calls in ->remove()). Perhaps it would also require Fixes tag to be applied. > > Also do you have any remarks on the patch adding the get_stage > callback before I send out a v2? No, looks sane, just same comment as above per pm calls. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko