On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 _think_ this discussion, but may be it's simple another tentacle of the same octopus. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/20200520095148.10995-1-dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > 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 -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
