On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] wrote:

* Liam Breck [off-list ref] [170126 15:57]:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -1430,10 +1473,20 @@ static int bq24190_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 static int bq24190_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
        struct bq24190_dev_info *bdi = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
+       int error;
+
+       error = pm_runtime_get_sync(bdi->dev);
+       if (error < 0) {
+               dev_warn(bdi->dev, "pm_runtime_get failed: %i\n", error);
+               pm_runtime_put_noidle(bdi->dev);
+       }

-       pm_runtime_get_sync(bdi->dev);
        bq24190_register_reset(bdi);
-       pm_runtime_put_sync(bdi->dev);
+
+       if (!error) {
+               pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(bdi->dev);
+               pm_runtime_put_sync(bdi->dev);
+       }

Should put_sync() be called before dont_use_autosuspend(), as in probe()?

Yeah good to have them paired. With pm_runtime_put_noidle() we're
active on error, so we can just call pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
and pm_runtime_put_sync() unconditionally.

I meant should the two pm_runtime_* calls above be flipped, so
put_sync() is first. That's the order in probe()