From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grygorii Strashko Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: ti-qspi: improve ->remove() callback Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:43:14 +0200 Message-ID: <56378492.702@ti.com> References: <1446127050-5957-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <563778B8.9060109@ti.com> <87bnbcctsk.fsf@saruman.tx.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87bnbcctsk.fsf-HgARHv6XitJaoMGHk7MhZQC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Felipe Balbi , Mark Brown Cc: linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 11/02/2015 05:20 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Grygorii Strashko writes: > >> On 10/29/2015 03:57 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> there's no need to call pm_runtime_get_sync() >>> followed by pm_runtime_put(). We should, instead, >>> just call pm_runtime_put_sync() and pm_runtime_disable(). >> >> Sry, but why do we need to call pm_runtime_put[_sync]() here? >> >> My be just pm_runtime_disable() will be ok? > > and disable with unbalanced pm_runtime_get() ? > Which one is unbalanced pm_runtime_get()? There are no pm_runtime_get() in probe, so there you are going to introduce unbalanced pm_runtime_put_sync() actually :( -- regards, -grygorii -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html