All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Abliyev, Reuven" <reuven.abliyev@intel.com>,
	"De Marchi, Lucas" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:39:34 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPebJrWsqMCKmMpX@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CY5PR11MB6366D892E7B6FDB112751306EDF2A@CY5PR11MB6366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:51:30PM +0000, Usyskin, Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 01:09:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 06:01:45PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:

...

> > > > +	devm_pm_runtime_enable(device);
> > >
> > > Please, justify why this code is good without error checking. Before doing
> > that
> > > think for a moment for the cases when devm_*() might be developed in the
> > future
> > > and return something interesting (if not yet).
> 
> We should not fail the probe because of runtime  pm enablement failure, I suppose.
> There are other ways to keep card awake.
> The pm_runtime_* functions work without runtime_enable but have no effect.
> Thus, we can ignore failure here.

Using devm_*() in such a case is misleading. It incorporates errors from
different layers and ignoring both is odd.

I would suggest to avoid using devm_*() in this case and put a comment on
the ignored PM errors (however, personally I think this approach is wrong).

...

> > > >  err:
> > > > +	pm_runtime_put(device);
> > > > +err_norpm:
> > > >  	kref_put(&nvm->refcnt, intel_dg_nvm_release);
> > > >  	return ret;
> > >
> > > Mixing devm with non-devm usually lead to hard to catch bugs in the error
> > paths
> > > / remove stages with ordering of cleaning resources up.
> 
> I see that this pattern is reasonably common in drivers.
> There can't be devm wrappers for pm_runtime_get/put and these functions works
> regardless of enable status.

It can be wrapped to become a managed resource, but the problem is that you are
ignoring errors from it, which I consider a bit incorrect.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Abliyev, Reuven" <reuven.abliyev@intel.com>,
	"De Marchi, Lucas" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:39:34 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPebJrWsqMCKmMpX@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CY5PR11MB6366D892E7B6FDB112751306EDF2A@CY5PR11MB6366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:51:30PM +0000, Usyskin, Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 01:09:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 06:01:45PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:

...

> > > > +	devm_pm_runtime_enable(device);
> > >
> > > Please, justify why this code is good without error checking. Before doing
> > that
> > > think for a moment for the cases when devm_*() might be developed in the
> > future
> > > and return something interesting (if not yet).
> 
> We should not fail the probe because of runtime  pm enablement failure, I suppose.
> There are other ways to keep card awake.
> The pm_runtime_* functions work without runtime_enable but have no effect.
> Thus, we can ignore failure here.

Using devm_*() in such a case is misleading. It incorporates errors from
different layers and ignoring both is odd.

I would suggest to avoid using devm_*() in this case and put a comment on
the ignored PM errors (however, personally I think this approach is wrong).

...

> > > >  err:
> > > > +	pm_runtime_put(device);
> > > > +err_norpm:
> > > >  	kref_put(&nvm->refcnt, intel_dg_nvm_release);
> > > >  	return ret;
> > >
> > > Mixing devm with non-devm usually lead to hard to catch bugs in the error
> > paths
> > > / remove stages with ordering of cleaning resources up.
> 
> I see that this pattern is reasonably common in drivers.
> There can't be devm wrappers for pm_runtime_get/put and these functions works
> regardless of enable status.

It can be wrapped to become a managed resource, but the problem is that you are
ignoring errors from it, which I consider a bit incorrect.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-21 14:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-19 15:01 [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations Alexander Usyskin
2025-10-19 15:01 ` Alexander Usyskin
2025-10-20 10:09 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-10-20 10:09   ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-10-20 10:10   ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-10-20 10:10     ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-10-21 12:51     ` Usyskin, Alexander
2025-10-21 12:51       ` Usyskin, Alexander
2025-10-21 14:39       ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2025-10-21 14:39         ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-10-21 15:03         ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-10-21 15:03           ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-10-23 10:53           ` Usyskin, Alexander
2025-10-23 10:53             ` Usyskin, Alexander

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aPebJrWsqMCKmMpX@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.usyskin@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=reuven.abliyev@intel.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.