Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] watchdog: rzg2l_wdt: Check return status of pm_runtime_put()

[claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>]

On 31.01.2024 12:41, Biju Das wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] watchdog: rzg2l_wdt: Check return status of
>> pm_runtime_put()
>>
>> Hi, Biju,
>>
>> On 31.01.2024 12:32, Biju Das wrote:
>>> Hi Claudiu,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:20 AM
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v2 04/11] watchdog: rzg2l_wdt: Check return status of
>>>> pm_runtime_put()
>>>>
>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@bp.renesas.com>
>>>>
>>>> pm_runtime_put() may return an error code. Check its return status.
>>>>
>>>> Along with it the rzg2l_wdt_set_timeout() function was updated to
>>>> propagate the result of rzg2l_wdt_stop() to its caller.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 2cbc5cd0b55f ("watchdog: Add Watchdog Timer driver for
>>>> RZ/G2L")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@bp.renesas.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - propagate the return code of rzg2l_wdt_stop() to it's callers
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>> b/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c index d87d4f50180c..7bce093316c4
>>>> 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/rzg2l_wdt.c
>>>> @@ -144,9 +144,13 @@ static int rzg2l_wdt_start(struct
>>>> watchdog_device
>>>> *wdev)  static int rzg2l_wdt_stop(struct watchdog_device *wdev)  {
>>>>  	struct rzg2l_wdt_priv *priv = watchdog_get_drvdata(wdev);
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>
>>>>  	rzg2l_wdt_reset(priv);
>>>> -	pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>>> +		return ret;
>>>
>>> Do we need to check the return code? So far we didn't hit this
>> condition.
>>> If you are planning to do it, then just
>>>
>>> return pm_runtime_put(wdev->parent);
>>
>> pm_runtime_put() may return 1 if the device is suspended (which is not
>> considered error) as explained here:
> 
> Oops, I missed that discussion. Out of curiosity,
> What watchdog framework/consumer is going to do with a 
> Non-error return value of 1?

Looking at this:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c#L809

it seems that the positive values are not considered errors thus, indeed,
we may return directly:

return pm_runtime_put();

Guenter,

With this (and previous discussion from [1]), are you OK to change it like:

return pm_runtime_put();

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

> 
> Cheers,
> Biju