On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:51:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On 04/15/2014 12:18 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 04/15/2014 12:06 PM, Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> >> On 15 April 2014 18:58, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >>> pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
> >>> S
On 04/15/2014 12:18 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 04/15/2014 12:06 PM, Joachim Eastwood wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 18:58, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
>>> So handle the error appropriately ensuring usage_count is accurate in
>>> c
On 04/15/2014 12:06 PM, Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 18:58, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
>> So handle the error appropriately ensuring usage_count is accurate in
>> case of failure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:58:31AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
> So handle the error appropriately ensuring usage_count is accurate in
> case of failure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon
Reviewed-by: Felipe Balbi
> ---
>
On 15 April 2014 18:58, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
> So handle the error appropriately ensuring usage_count is accurate in
> case of failure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon
> ---
> V2:
> - review fixes, print function n
pm_runtime_get_sync may not always succeed depending on SoC involved.
So handle the error appropriately ensuring usage_count is accurate in
case of failure.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon
---
V2:
- review fixes, print function names in error log as well.
V1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/p
