This aligns with [1] and converts the platform remove callback to
.remove_new(), which returns void.
[1]: commit a3afc5b10661 ("media: mtk_vcodec_dec_drv: Convert to
platform remove callback returning void")
Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <[email protected]>
---
drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
index b753bf54ebd9..bd5743723da6 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
@@ -193,16 +193,14 @@ static int mtk_vdec_hw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return ret;
}
-static int mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static void mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
-
- return 0;
}
static struct platform_driver mtk_vdec_driver = {
.probe = mtk_vdec_hw_probe,
- .remove = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
+ .remove_new = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
.driver = {
.name = "mtk-vdec-comp",
.of_match_table = mtk_vdec_hw_match,
--
2.40.1.521.gf1e218fcd8-goog
[expanding the audience a bit for more expertise]
Hello,
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:31:35PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> This aligns with [1] and converts the platform remove callback to
> .remove_new(), which returns void.
>
> [1]: commit a3afc5b10661 ("media: mtk_vcodec_dec_drv: Convert to
> platform remove callback returning void")
>
> Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> index b753bf54ebd9..bd5743723da6 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> @@ -193,16 +193,14 @@ static int mtk_vdec_hw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +static void mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> -
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver mtk_vdec_driver = {
> .probe = mtk_vdec_hw_probe,
> - .remove = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> + .remove_new = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = "mtk-vdec-comp",
> .of_match_table = mtk_vdec_hw_match,
While the patch looks fine, I wonder if having a remove callback just to
do pm_runtime_disable() is worth keeping it. Doesn't the core care for
things like that? I grepped a bit around, device_unbind_cleanup() is
called after device_remove() which calls pm_runtime_reinit(). Does that
mean calling pm_runtime_disable in .remove() is useless? In that case,
you could just drop the .remove() callback.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:43 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [expanding the audience a bit for more expertise]
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:31:35PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> > This aligns with [1] and converts the platform remove callback to
> > .remove_new(), which returns void.
> >
> > [1]: commit a3afc5b10661 ("media: mtk_vcodec_dec_drv: Convert to
> > platform remove callback returning void")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > index b753bf54ebd9..bd5743723da6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > @@ -193,16 +193,14 @@ static int mtk_vdec_hw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static int mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static void mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static struct platform_driver mtk_vdec_driver = {
> > .probe = mtk_vdec_hw_probe,
> > - .remove = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> > + .remove_new = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> > .driver = {
> > .name = "mtk-vdec-comp",
> > .of_match_table = mtk_vdec_hw_match,
>
> While the patch looks fine, I wonder if having a remove callback just to
> do pm_runtime_disable() is worth keeping it. Doesn't the core care for
> things like that? I grepped a bit around, device_unbind_cleanup() is
> called after device_remove() which calls pm_runtime_reinit(). Does that
> mean calling pm_runtime_disable in .remove() is useless? In that case,
> you could just drop the .remove() callback.
Maybe just switch to devm_pm_runtime_enable() on the enable side?
ChenYu
Hi,
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:50 PM Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:43 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [expanding the audience a bit for more expertise]
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:31:35PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> > > This aligns with [1] and converts the platform remove callback to
> > > .remove_new(), which returns void.
> > >
> > > [1]: commit a3afc5b10661 ("media: mtk_vcodec_dec_drv: Convert to
> > > platform remove callback returning void")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fei Shao <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c | 6 ++----
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > > index b753bf54ebd9..bd5743723da6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/mtk_vcodec_dec_hw.c
> > > @@ -193,16 +193,14 @@ static int mtk_vdec_hw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +static void mtk_vdec_hw_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> > > -
> > > - return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static struct platform_driver mtk_vdec_driver = {
> > > .probe = mtk_vdec_hw_probe,
> > > - .remove = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> > > + .remove_new = mtk_vdec_hw_remove,
> > > .driver = {
> > > .name = "mtk-vdec-comp",
> > > .of_match_table = mtk_vdec_hw_match,
> >
> > While the patch looks fine, I wonder if having a remove callback just to
> > do pm_runtime_disable() is worth keeping it. Doesn't the core care for
> > things like that? I grepped a bit around, device_unbind_cleanup() is
> > called after device_remove() which calls pm_runtime_reinit(). Does that
> > mean calling pm_runtime_disable in .remove() is useless? In that case,
> > you could just drop the .remove() callback.
Thanks for the feedback.
I wonder if the core would handle that for drivers... if I understand
it correctly, pm_runtime_reinit() does not disable runtime PM for a
device, otherwise pm_runtime_remove() wouldn't need to bother
calling __pm_runtime_disable() before pm_runtime_reinit().
In fact, from the runtime_pm documentation [1] I read the following:
"Drivers in ->remove() callback should undo the runtime PM changes
done in ->probe(). Usually this means calling pm_runtime_disable(),
pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() etc."
Based on the above I assume it's still necessary given pm_runtime_enable()
was called in ->probe().
[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt
>
> Maybe just switch to devm_pm_runtime_enable() on the enable side?
That sounds like a good alternative, I'll revise and send a new patch, thanks.
Regards,
Fei
>
> ChenYu