[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f928fb02-47d7-b6f9-6198-bd549d6ac6b5@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 07:09:03 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <emamd001@....edu>, <wu000273@....edu>, <kjlu@....edu>,
<mccamant@...umn.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra114: missing put on pm_runtime_get_sync failure
On 02/06/2020 05:55, Navid Emamdoost wrote:
> the call to pm_runtime_get_sync increments the counter even
> in case of failure leading to incorrect ref count.
> Call pm_runtime_put if pm_runtime_get_sync fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> index 83edabdb41ad..dccd2ac1a975 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-tegra114.c
> @@ -974,6 +974,7 @@ static int tegra_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
> dev_err(tspi->dev, "pm runtime failed, e = %d\n", ret);
> if (cdata)
> tegra_spi_cleanup(spi);
> + pm_runtime_put(tspi->dev);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -1398,6 +1399,7 @@ static int tegra_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> 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);
> goto exit_pm_disable;
> }
I am wondering if it is better we use put_sync() here to ensure that
this happens before we exit the probe.
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists