On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > both in the I2C subsystem and also for Renesas drivers I maintain, I am > starting to get boilerplate patches doing some pm_runtime_put_* variant > because a failing pm_runtime_get is supposed to increase the ref > counters? Really? This feels wrong and unintuitive to me. Yeah, that is a well known issue with PM (I even have for a long time a coccinelle script, when I realized myself that there are a lot of cases like this, but someone else discovered this recently, like opening a can of worms). > I expect there > has been a discussion around it but I couldn't find it. Rafael explained (again) recently this. I can't find it quickly, unfortunately. > I wonder why we > don't fix the code where the incremented refcount is expected for some > reason. The main idea behind API that a lot of drivers do *not* check error codes from runtime PM, so, we need to keep balance in case of pm_runtime_get(...); ... pm_runtime_put(...); > Can I have some pointers please? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
