On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > In the not-enabled -> enabled path pwm_lpss_apply() needs to get a > runtime-pm reference; and then on any errors it needs to release it > again. > > This leads to somewhat hard to read code. This commit introduces a new > pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper and moves all the steps necessary for > the not-enabled -> enabled transition there, so that we can error check > the entire transition in a single place and only have one pm_runtime_put() > on failure call site. > > While working on this I noticed that the enabled -> enabled (update > settings) path was quite similar, so I've added an enable parameter to > the new pwm_lpss_prepare_enable() helper, which allows using it in that > path too.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> But see below. > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c > index da9bc3d10104..8a136ba2a583 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c > @@ -122,41 +122,48 @@ static inline void pwm_lpss_cond_enable(struct > pwm_device *pwm, bool cond) > pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) | PWM_ENABLE); > } > > +static int pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, > + struct pwm_device *pwm, > + const struct pwm_state *state, > + bool enable) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period); > + pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == false); > + ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, enable && lpwm->info->bypass == true); > + return 0; > +} > + > static int pwm_lpss_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > const struct pwm_state *state) > { > struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm = to_lpwm(chip); > - int ret; > + int ret = 0; We can avoid this change... > if (state->enabled) { > if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { > pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev); > - ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm); > - if (ret) { > - pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); > - return ret; > - } > - pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, > state->period); > - pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == false); > - ret = pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm); > - if (ret) { > + ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, true); > + if (ret) > pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); > - return ret; > - } > - pwm_lpss_cond_enable(pwm, lpwm->info->bypass == true); > } else { > - ret = pwm_lpss_is_updating(pwm); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - pwm_lpss_prepare(lpwm, pwm, state->duty_cycle, > state->period); > - return pwm_lpss_wait_for_update(pwm); > + ret = pwm_lpss_prepare_enable(lpwm, pwm, state, false); ...by simple return directly from here. But I admit I haven't seen the next patch yet. > } > } else if (pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) { > pwm_lpss_write(pwm, pwm_lpss_read(pwm) & ~PWM_ENABLE); > pm_runtime_put(chip->dev); > } > > - return 0; > + return ret; > } > > static void pwm_lpss_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, > -- > 2.26.2 > -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel