RE: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations

Usyskin, Alexander
2025-10-23T10:53:20Z

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: intel-dg: wake card on operations
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 05:39:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >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.
>
> not really
>
> >> 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).
>
> Agreed. We should not silently continue on error. Fix the cause of the
> error intead. If it's something that can be disabled in
> runtime/configure time, and it doesn't return success, handle that
> specific error code.
>
> If there's a reason to ignore the error, it should be intentional.
>
> Lucas De Marchi

Ok, will check and fail the probe on this api failure.

- -
Thanks,
Sasha