Re: [PATCH net-next v3 04/12] net: pcs: add Renesas MII converter driver

[Clément Léger]

Le Thu, 5 May 2022 15:00:28 +0200,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi Clément,
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:33 PM Clément Léger <clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Le Thu, 5 May 2022 09:16:38 +0200,
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :  
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:31 AM Clément Léger <clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > > > Add a PCS driver for the MII converter that is present on the Renesas
> > > > RZ/N1 SoC. This MII converter is reponsible for converting MII to
> > > > RMII/RGMII or act as a MII pass-trough. Exposing it as a PCS allows to
> > > > reuse it in both the switch driver and the stmmac driver. Currently,
> > > > this driver only allows the PCS to be used by the dual Cortex-A7
> > > > subsystem since the register locking system is not used.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patch!
> > >  
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-rzn1-miic.c  
> > >  
> > > > +static int miic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > +       struct miic *miic;
> > > > +       u32 mode_cfg;
> > > > +       int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +       ret = miic_parse_dt(dev, &mode_cfg);
> > > > +       if (ret < 0)
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       miic = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*miic), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +       if (!miic)
> > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +       spin_lock_init(&miic->lock);
> > > > +       miic->dev = dev;
> > > > +       miic->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > > > +       if (!miic->base)
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > > > +       ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(dev);
> > > > +       if (ret < 0)  
> > >
> > > Missing pm_runtime_disable(dev).  
> >
> > Maybe using devm_pm_runtime_enable() would be sufficient and avoid such
> > calls.  
> 
> That's an option.
> Note that that still won't allow you to get rid of the .remove() callback,
> as you still have to call pm_runtime_put() manually.

Yes, of course :) I'll do the modifications.

Thanks,

-- 
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com