Skip to content

Remove redundant check for return value #10006

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
ranj063 wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove redundant check for return value #10006

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 1 addition & 4 deletions zephyr/lib/cpu.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -218,10 +218,7 @@ void cpu_disable_core(int id)
}
#if defined(CONFIG_PM)
/* TODO: before requesting core shut down check if it's not actively used */
if (!pm_state_force(id, &(struct pm_state_info){PM_STATE_SOFT_OFF, 0, 0})) {
tr_err(&zephyr_tr, "failed to set PM_STATE_SOFT_OFF on core %d", id);
return;
}
pm_state_force(id, &(struct pm_state_info){PM_STATE_SOFT_OFF, 0, 0});
Copy link
Contributor

@tmleman tmleman May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I remember correctly, at the time it was written, it was possible to receive false. But currently, that possibility no longer exists; the function returns true even if the specified state cannot be set.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lyakh lyakh May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, but the function returns a "success status" supposedly. Should we add an assert in case the implementation changes? And in production builds it will be removed anyway

Copy link
Member

@lgirdwood lgirdwood May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think its wise keeping the check - its safe for future API changes, and its non time critical code.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ranj063 ranj063 May 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok ill close this PR. Anyway, I want to remove the call for pm_state_force() during disable and use sys_poweroff() instead.


/* Primary core will be turn off by the host after it enter SOFT_OFF state */
if (cpu_is_primary(id))
Expand Down
Loading