[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <af91d97e-6367-996b-a925-a5c81f6fb182@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 09:38:52 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>
CC: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra20-slink: Fix runtime PM imbalance on error
On 21/05/2020 09:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:50 AM Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn> wrote:
>>
>> pm_runtime_get_sync() increments the runtime PM usage counter even
>> when it returns an error code. Thus a pairing decrement is needed on
>> the error handling path to keep the counter balanced.
>
> ...
>
>> ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pm runtime get failed, e = %d\n", ret);
>
>> + pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev);
>
> For all your patches, please, double check what you are proposing.
>
> Here, I believe, the correct one will be _put_noidle().
>
> AFAIU you are not supposed to actually suspend the device in case of error.
> But I might be mistaken, thus see above.
>
>> goto exit_pm_disable;
>> }
Is there any reason why this is not handled in pm_runtime_get itself?
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists