Re: [PATCH] gpio-intel-mid: fix the incorrect return of idle callback

[David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:50:57PM +0800, xinhui.pan wrote:
> > From: "xinhui.pan" <xinhuiX.pan@intel.com>
> > 
> > intel_gpio_runtime_idle should return correct error code if it do fail.
> > make it more correct even though -EBUSY is the most possible return value.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: bo.he <bo.he@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: xinhui.pan <xinhuiX.pan@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > index d1b50ef..05749a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c
> > @@ -394,7 +394,9 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops intel_gpio_irq_ops = {
> >  
> >  static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > -	pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > +	int err = pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> >  	return -EBUSY;
> 
> wait, is it only me or this would look a lot better as:
> 
> static int intel_gpio_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> {
> 	return pm_schedule_suspend(dev, 500);
> }

The reply to your suggestion is probably in this commit :)

---
commit 45f0a85c8258741d11bda25c0a5669c06267204a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 3 21:49:52 2013 +0200

    PM / Runtime: Rework the "runtime idle" helper routine
---

We won't return 0 from here.

Br, David

> 
> cheers
> 
> -- 
> balbi