Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sure, I mean, the root reason of this problem is here ( i.e. > "stm_core_up" was zero then): > if (!stm_core_up) > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > Why it was zero? > Because the function (i.e. stm_core_init() ) in which "stm_core_up" > would be added one hasn't been executed at this moment. It would be > executed on module_init stage for you this version of patch. Again, this is the indented behavior. > The reason of this warning is: > After stm_probe() failed, clk_core_disable() would be called from > amba_put_disable_pclk(), then WARN_ON() happened: > if (WARN_ON(core->enable_count == 0)) > return; > > I'm guessing the reason why "core->enable_count" was 0 at this moment is: > I don't know who created a thread to process the > amba_pm_runtime_suspend(), in which clk_core_disable() was already > called, "core->enable_count" was, of course, cleared to zero then. > And this thread run before amba_put_disable_pclk(pcdev) which is just > the one called from amba_probe() after > "->probe"(i.e. stm_probe in this case) returning a non-zero value. No, this is guesswork. In amba_probe(), clocks are enabled for the drv->probe() and then disabled afterwards and that's where the refcount ends up unbalanced, the probe is the culprit. I can debug your driver for you but you'll at least need to put the code up somewhere so I can see it. Regards, -- Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
