[PATCH 0/3] PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void

[PATCH 0/3] PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void

[Dhruva Gole]

This is a follow up patch based on discussions with Rafael[0] on a previous
patch I sent to propagate return value from device_wakeup_disable
further upward inside device_init_wakeup

However, it doesn't seem like today any return values from
device_wakeup_disable are very useful to the caller.

I could only spot one caller of this function that was actually
propagating the return value upward other than the PM core calls. I have
tried to update sdhci-pci-core to work with the new changes

I think that the patch 3/3 should go via Adrian or Ulf's tree, rest are
all PM core changes.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJZ5v0jbHwiZemtNAoM-jmgB_58VqmKUkqv4P7qrPkxWzBzMyQ@mail.gmail.com/

Dhruva Gole (3):
  PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void
  PM: wakeup: Remove unnecessary else from device_init_wakeup
  mmc: sdhci-pci: Use device_set_wakeup_enable for en/disable wakeups

 drivers/base/power/wakeup.c       | 11 +++++++----
 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c |  4 ++--
 include/linux/pm_wakeup.h         | 12 +++++-------
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 1/3] PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void

[Dhruva Gole]

The device_wakeup_disable call only returns an error if no dev exists
however there's not much a user can do at that point.
Rather make this function return void.

Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
---
 drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 11 +++++++----
 include/linux/pm_wakeup.h   |  5 ++---
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
index a917219feea6..752b417e8129 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
@@ -451,16 +451,15 @@ static struct wakeup_source *device_wakeup_detach(struct device *dev)
  * Detach the @dev's wakeup source object from it, unregister this wakeup source
  * object and destroy it.
  */
-int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
+void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct wakeup_source *ws;
 
 	if (!dev || !dev->power.can_wakeup)
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return;
 
 	ws = device_wakeup_detach(dev);
 	wakeup_source_unregister(ws);
-	return 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_wakeup_disable);
 
@@ -502,7 +501,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_capable);
  */
 int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
 {
-	return enable ? device_wakeup_enable(dev) : device_wakeup_disable(dev);
+	if (enable)
+		return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
+
+	device_wakeup_disable(dev);
+	return 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_enable);
 
diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
index 6eb9adaef52b..428803eed798 100644
--- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
+++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ extern void wakeup_sources_read_unlock(int idx);
 extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_start(void);
 extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_next(struct wakeup_source *ws);
 extern int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev);
-extern int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
+extern void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
 extern void device_set_wakeup_capable(struct device *dev, bool capable);
 extern int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable);
 extern void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws);
@@ -154,10 +154,9 @@ static inline int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static inline int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
+static inline void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
 {
 	dev->power.should_wakeup = false;
-	return 0;
 }
 
 static inline int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 2/3] PM: wakeup: Remove unnecessary else from device_init_wakeup

[Dhruva Gole]

Checkpatch warns that else is generally not necessary after a return
condition which exists in the if part of this function. Hence, just to
abide by what checkpatch recommends, follow it's guidelines.

Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
---
 include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
index 428803eed798..76cd1f9f1365 100644
--- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
+++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
@@ -234,11 +234,10 @@ static inline int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
 	if (enable) {
 		device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
 		return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
-	} else {
-		device_wakeup_disable(dev);
-		device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
-		return 0;
 	}
+	device_wakeup_disable(dev);
+	device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
+	return 0;
 }
 
 #endif /* _LINUX_PM_WAKEUP_H */
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 3/3] mmc: sdhci-pci: Use device_set_wakeup_enable for en/disable wakeups

[Dhruva Gole]

There exists device_set_wakeup_enable for wrapping device_wakeup_enable
and device_wakeup_disable. Use that instead to avoid confusion in
returning from a void vs int function.

Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
---

I do not have the hardware to test out this driver, hence requesting
someone to review/ test it if atall you suspect that this change can
break existing functionality.

 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
index 025b31aa712c..db614389a5fc 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
@@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ static int sdhci_pci_init_wakeup(struct sdhci_pci_chip *chip)
 	}
 
 	if ((pm_flags & MMC_PM_KEEP_POWER) && (pm_flags & MMC_PM_WAKE_SDIO_IRQ))
-		return device_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev);
+		return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, true);
 	else if (!cap_cd_wake)
-		return device_wakeup_disable(&chip->pdev->dev);
+		return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, false);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
>
> The device_wakeup_disable call only returns an error if no dev exists
> however there's not much a user can do at that point.
> Rather make this function return void.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 11 +++++++----
>  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h   |  5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> index a917219feea6..752b417e8129 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> @@ -451,16 +451,15 @@ static struct wakeup_source *device_wakeup_detach(struct device *dev)
>   * Detach the @dev's wakeup source object from it, unregister this wakeup source
>   * object and destroy it.
>   */
> -int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
> +void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
>  {
>         struct wakeup_source *ws;
>
>         if (!dev || !dev->power.can_wakeup)
> -               return -EINVAL;
> +               return;
>
>         ws = device_wakeup_detach(dev);
>         wakeup_source_unregister(ws);
> -       return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_wakeup_disable);
>
> @@ -502,7 +501,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_capable);
>   */
>  int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
>  {
> -       return enable ? device_wakeup_enable(dev) : device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> +       if (enable)
> +               return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> +
> +       device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_enable);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> index 6eb9adaef52b..428803eed798 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ extern void wakeup_sources_read_unlock(int idx);
>  extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_start(void);
>  extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_next(struct wakeup_source *ws);
>  extern int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev);
> -extern int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
> +extern void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);

This change will introduce a build error in sdhci-pci-core.c AFAICS,
so you need to modify this file in the same patch to avoid bisection
breakage.

>  extern void device_set_wakeup_capable(struct device *dev, bool capable);
>  extern int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable);
>  extern void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws);
> @@ -154,10 +154,9 @@ static inline int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static inline int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
> +static inline void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
>  {
>         dev->power.should_wakeup = false;
> -       return 0;
>  }
>
>  static inline int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mmc: sdhci-pci: Use device_set_wakeup_enable for en/disable wakeups

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
>
> There exists device_set_wakeup_enable for wrapping device_wakeup_enable
> and device_wakeup_disable. Use that instead to avoid confusion in
> returning from a void vs int function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> ---
>
> I do not have the hardware to test out this driver, hence requesting
> someone to review/ test it if atall you suspect that this change can
> break existing functionality.
>
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
> index 025b31aa712c..db614389a5fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pci-core.c
> @@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ static int sdhci_pci_init_wakeup(struct sdhci_pci_chip *chip)
>         }
>
>         if ((pm_flags & MMC_PM_KEEP_POWER) && (pm_flags & MMC_PM_WAKE_SDIO_IRQ))
> -               return device_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev);
> +               return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, true);

This change is not necessary.

>         else if (!cap_cd_wake)
> -               return device_wakeup_disable(&chip->pdev->dev);
> +               return device_set_wakeup_enable(&chip->pdev->dev, false);

It would be sufficient to simply drop the return statement from here, that is

+               device_wakeup_disable(&chip->pdev->dev);

and it can be done in the first patch (which would be less confusing even IMO).

>
>         return 0;
>  }
> --

Re: [PATCH 2/3] PM: wakeup: Remove unnecessary else from device_init_wakeup

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Checkpatch warns that else is generally not necessary after a return
> condition which exists in the if part of this function. Hence, just to
> abide by what checkpatch recommends, follow it's guidelines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> index 428803eed798..76cd1f9f1365 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> @@ -234,11 +234,10 @@ static inline int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
>         if (enable) {
>                 device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
>                 return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> -       } else {
> -               device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> -               device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> -               return 0;
>         }
> +       device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> +       device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  #endif /* _LINUX_PM_WAKEUP_H */
> --

This one is fine with me, but not 6.9-rc material.

Thanks!

Re: [PATCH 2/3] PM: wakeup: Remove unnecessary else from device_init_wakeup

[Dhruva Gole]

On Mar 18, 2024 at 14:52:02 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > Checkpatch warns that else is generally not necessary after a return
> > condition which exists in the if part of this function. Hence, just to
> > abide by what checkpatch recommends, follow it's guidelines.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 7 +++----
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > index 428803eed798..76cd1f9f1365 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > @@ -234,11 +234,10 @@ static inline int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> >         if (enable) {
> >                 device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
> >                 return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> > -       } else {
> > -               device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > -               device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> > -               return 0;
> >         }
> > +       device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > +       device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  #endif /* _LINUX_PM_WAKEUP_H */
> > --
> 
> This one is fine with me, but not 6.9-rc material.

OK, I completely understand.

-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: wakeup: make device_wakeup_disable return void

[Dhruva Gole]

On Mar 18, 2024 at 14:47:45 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:55 AM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > The device_wakeup_disable call only returns an error if no dev exists
> > however there's not much a user can do at that point.
> > Rather make this function return void.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  include/linux/pm_wakeup.h   |  5 ++---
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > index a917219feea6..752b417e8129 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > @@ -451,16 +451,15 @@ static struct wakeup_source *device_wakeup_detach(struct device *dev)
> >   * Detach the @dev's wakeup source object from it, unregister this wakeup source
> >   * object and destroy it.
> >   */
> > -int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
> > +void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> >         struct wakeup_source *ws;
> >
> >         if (!dev || !dev->power.can_wakeup)
> > -               return -EINVAL;
> > +               return;
> >
> >         ws = device_wakeup_detach(dev);
> >         wakeup_source_unregister(ws);
> > -       return 0;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_wakeup_disable);
> >
> > @@ -502,7 +501,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_capable);
> >   */
> >  int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> >  {
> > -       return enable ? device_wakeup_enable(dev) : device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > +       if (enable)
> > +               return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> > +
> > +       device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_enable);
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > index 6eb9adaef52b..428803eed798 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ extern void wakeup_sources_read_unlock(int idx);
> >  extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_start(void);
> >  extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_next(struct wakeup_source *ws);
> >  extern int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev);
> > -extern int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
> > +extern void device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
> 
> This change will introduce a build error in sdhci-pci-core.c AFAICS,
> so you need to modify this file in the same patch to avoid bisection
> breakage.

Alright, I have respinned the series and fixed up the first patch
itself.

Thanks!


-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>