On 05-07-21, 16:41, yukuai (C) wrote: > Hi, Vinod > > Are you still intrested in accepting this patch? - Please do not top post - yes, pls rebase and resend > On 2021/06/07 18:19, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 07-06-21, 10:06, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 04:39:08PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On 31-05-21, 11:19, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 02:27:34PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > > On 31-05-21, 14:11, yukuai (C) wrote: > > > > > > > On 2021/05/31 12:00, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > > > > On 17-05-21, 16:18, Yu Kuai wrote: > > > > > > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync will increment pm usage counter even it failed. > > > > > > > > > Forgetting to putting operation will result in reference leak here. > > > > > > > > > Fix it by replacing it with pm_runtime_resume_and_get to keep usage > > > > > > > > > counter balanced. > > > > > > > > > Yes the rumtime_pm is disabled on failure here and the count would have > > > > > > no consequence... > > > > > > > > > > You should still balance the PM usage counter as it isn't reset for > > > > > example when reloading the driver. > > > > > > > > Should I driver trust that on load PM usage counter is balanced and not > > > > to be reset..? > > > > > > Not sure what you're asking here. But a driver should never leave the PM > > > usage counter unbalanced. > > > > Thinking about again, yes we should safely assume the counter is > > balanced when driver loads.. so unloading while balancing sounds better > > behaviour > > > > Thanks > > -- ~Vinod
