Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103492-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240314075429.1164810-1-d-gole@ti.com> <CAJZ5v0iUt+tudMV-rJ80GR6iNQVv06+054h0UyNgpEOUF6QLRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240314151846.u3r3eaklrl3hf7pi@dhruva>
In-Reply-To: <20240314151846.u3r3eaklrl3hf7pi@dhruva>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:29:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gwkKa+AYgOwydzsKjo=_M56t88PwVo7R+fe-53abAdVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: wakeup: Add a missing return case in init_wakeup
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, theo.lebrun@bootlin.com, 
	Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:18=E2=80=AFPM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 14, 2024 at 15:01:36 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:55=E2=80=AFAM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wro=
te:
> > >
> > > The device_wakeup_disable call can return an error if no dev exists
> > > however this was being ignored. Catch this return value and propagate=
 it
> > > onward in device_init_wakeup.
> >
> > Why does this matter to the callers of device_init_wakeup()?
>
> If atall !dev->power.can_wakeup then the caller should know something is
> funny right?

What would the caller do with this information?

They attempted to disable wakeup on a device that doesn't exist or is
not wake-capable, and so what?