linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: sst: Fix runtime PM imbalance in sst_power

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 08:25:44 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>, kjlu@....edu
Cc:     Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: sst: Fix runtime PM imbalance in
 sst_power_control



On 5/25/20 2:06 AM, Dinghao Liu wrote:
> When sst_load_fw() returns an error code, a pairing runtime
> PM usage counter decrement is needed to keep the counter
> balanced.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>
> ---
>   sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
> index 762495385d5c..3897985b254f 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ static int sst_power_control(struct device *dev, bool state)
>   		if ((ctx->sst_state == SST_RESET) && (usage_count == 1)) {
>   			ret = sst_load_fw(ctx);
>   			if (ret) {
> +				pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>   				dev_err(dev, "FW download fail %d\n", ret);
>   				sst_set_fw_state_locked(ctx, SST_RESET);
>   				ret = sst_pm_runtime_put(ctx);

this change doesn't seem quite right, if you look the code below there 
is no PM imbalance, is there?

int sst_pm_runtime_put(struct intel_sst_drv *sst_drv)
{
	int ret;

	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(sst_drv->dev);
	ret = pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(sst_drv->dev);
	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;
	return 0;
}