[PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: fix warning during module remove function

[Shawn Guo]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:16:09AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:34:13AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > @@ -1169,10 +1167,6 @@ static int sdhci_esdhc_imx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >  	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
> > > >  	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> > > >  
> > > > -	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_per);
> > > > -	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ipg);
> > > > -	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ahb);
> > > 
> > > It's obviously a bad change to me.  We should definitely have these
> > > clk_disable_unprepare() calls in sdhci_esdhc_imx_remove() to match the
> > > clk_prepare_enable() calls in sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe().  Otherwise, at
> > > least for !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME build, it's broken.
> > > 
> > 
> > How about add the !CONFIG_RUMTIME_PM precondition for these code to avoid
> > break non runtime pm case?
> > 
> > #ifndef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> > 	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_per);
> > 	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ipg);
> > 	clk_disable_unprepare(imx_data->clk_ahb);
> > #endif
> 
> It's quite ugly.  But well, if we do not have anything better, we have
> to live with it.

To make it look less ugly, we may want to use something like the
following.

	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)

Shawn