[v4, 1/9] ACPI / PM: Let acpi_dev_pm_detach() return an error code

[dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (Dmitry Torokhov)]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:25:44PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 16 September 2014 01:36, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 15, 2014 09:53:59 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 06:38:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Friday, September 12, 2014 02:05:53 PM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> > > Hi Ulf,
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:36:02PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> > > > To give callers the option of acting on a errors while removing the
> >> > > > pm_domain ops for the device in the ACPI PM domain, let
> >> > > > acpi_dev_pm_detach() return an int to provide the error code.
> >> > >
> >> > > So how would callers handle the errors? As far as I can see
> >> > > acpi_dev_pm_detach() is called from ->remove() and ->shutdown() methods, where
> >> > > there is no meaningful strategy to handle errors as you are past the point of
> >> > > no return and you keep on tearing down the device.
> 
> The benefit is only relevant when ACPI and genpd PM domains would
> co-exist. In that case we might be able to skip genpd_dev_pm_detach()
> if acpi_dev_pm_detach() succeeds. So, currently there are  no benefit,
> but still it doesn't hurt.

It doe snot have any negative material effect, the drawback is purely
from API perspective.

> 
> >> >
> >> > This is specifically for what patch [3/9] is doing AFAICS.
> >> >
> >> > The existing callers don't need to worry about this.
> >>
> >> OK, so I have the very same comment about patch 3 then: we have
> >> dev_pm_domain_detach() returning error. How would the callers handle errors?
> >
> > Ulf?
> 
> I see your point. How about making dev_pm_domain_detach() to be a void
> function instead?

Yes, please.

> 
> >
> >> WRT this patch: I'd rater we did not just return generic "error code" just
> >> because we do not know who manages PD for the device. Can we add API to check
> >> if we are using ACPI to manage power domains? Then patch #3 could check if it
> >> needs to use ACPI or generic power domain API.
> 
> The problem is scalability. If we have other PM domains implementation
> in future, each of them need to be checked prior invoking the attach
> functions.
> Also, how would we distinguish between genpd and a new PM domain XYZ?

I do not think that trying all available methods to detach a pm domain,
i.e.

	err = acpi_dev_pm_detach();
	if (err)
		err = blah_dev_pm_detach();
	if (err)
		err = flab_dev_pm_detach();
	if (err)
		err = gen_dev_pm_detach();

is any better from scalability point of view. If you need to do that you
will probably have to store something like "struct pd_ops *pd_ops" in
your device and call appropriate implementation via it.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry