From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF56C433E1 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB1220771 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1594132145; bh=SeXjnrv0KQvcd5JrSwJuK4Z3XaoksQu7R84+qAENwuw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=V7+vRygHvann0QxIHv73AQQZg1nrLDUhViwHROCQj4lve2jg133SZC1Rmav32BJXB xEK+UyAEX7xzuxkmvT/tATctG44X+ZAvfUdhuz6nRqoddG3iYwPK9FUj4D9/rvNNxk TvxbhZ086AuTej8aaEBWgKs3YJpFJ4CODzqitHW4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727876AbgGGO3C (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:29:02 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58658 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726805AbgGGO3C (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:29:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7AAA2073E; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:29:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1594132141; bh=SeXjnrv0KQvcd5JrSwJuK4Z3XaoksQu7R84+qAENwuw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=P4FBXdVCCTFVLNly8/ClwjMiwbxZo2+1v2fWs/GeevPXQR9aB6PotkQGnK9uDtI8n Pj4Nw9OWHPnEpZtqW43oBirhBGSOHdjg+NHVJHuuJMvdG0gsH5QAiw7MASezJfgq7Q J0CRRFVkt+M1awRqGwq2cUUTDo6vkfeMFo/+qWAo= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:28:59 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming@chromium.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, swboyd@chromium.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] power: Emit changed uevent on wakeup_sysfs_add/remove Message-ID: <20200707142859.GB55434@kroah.com> References: <20200706210717.1210639-1-abhishekpandit@chromium.org> <20200706140715.v2.1.I51f5a0be89595b73c4dc17e6cf4cc6f26dc7f2fc@changeid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200706140715.v2.1.I51f5a0be89595b73c4dc17e6cf4cc6f26dc7f2fc@changeid> Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 02:07:17PM -0700, Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote: > Udev rules that depend on the power/wakeup attribute don't get triggered > correctly if device_set_wakeup_capable is called after the device is > created. This can happen for several reasons (driver sets wakeup after > device is created, wakeup is changed on parent device, etc) and it seems > reasonable to emit a changed event when adding or removing attributes on > the device. > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Add newline at end of bt_dev_err > > drivers/base/power/sysfs.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/sysfs.c b/drivers/base/power/sysfs.c > index 24d25cf8ab1487..d57e8e7f175ebf 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/sysfs.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/sysfs.c > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > /* sysfs entries for device PM */ > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -739,12 +740,30 @@ int dpm_sysfs_change_owner(struct device *dev, kuid_t kuid, kgid_t kgid) > > int wakeup_sysfs_add(struct device *dev) > { > - return sysfs_merge_group(&dev->kobj, &pm_wakeup_attr_group); > + int ret = sysfs_merge_group(&dev->kobj, &pm_wakeup_attr_group); > + > + if (!ret) { > + int tmp = kobject_uevent(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE); > + > + if (tmp) > + dev_err(dev, > + "Error in uevent for wakeup_sysfs_add: %d\n", > + tmp); > + } > + > + return ret; > } Shouldn't the above function look like this instead to be simpler: int wakeup_sysfs_add(struct device *dev) { int ret = sysfs_merge_group(&dev->kobj, &pm_wakeup_attr_group); if (ret) return ret; return kobject_uevent(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE); } > > void wakeup_sysfs_remove(struct device *dev) > { > + int tmp; Use 'ret' like the above function had, to be consistent. > + > sysfs_unmerge_group(&dev->kobj, &pm_wakeup_attr_group); > + > + tmp = kobject_uevent(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE); > + if (tmp) > + dev_err(dev, "Error in uevent for wakeup_sysfs_remove: %d\n", nit, use __func__ to describe a function name, if you really want it. Why do you need to send a message for this error, will that really ever happen? thanks, greg k-h