Re: [PATCH] gpio: rcar: handle pm_runtime_get_sync failure case

[Navid Emamdoost]

Hi Geert,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:26 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Navid,
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 4:50 AM Navid Emamdoost
> <navid.emamdoost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Calling pm_runtime_get_sync increments the counter even in case of
> > failure, causing incorrect ref count. Call pm_runtime_put if
> > pm_runtime_get_sync fails.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
> > @@ -250,8 +250,10 @@ static int gpio_rcar_request(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> >         int error;
> >
> >         error = pm_runtime_get_sync(p->dev);
> > -       if (error < 0)
> > +       if (error < 0) {
> > +               pm_runtime_put(p->dev);
>
> As per [1], I would like to see a call to pm_runtime_put_noidle() instead.

V2 was sent per your suggestion, thanks.

>
> [1] http://lore.kernel.org/r/CAJZ5v0i87NGcy9+kxubScdPDyByr8ypQWcGgBFn+V-wDd69BHQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >                 return error;
> > +       }
> >
> >         error = pinctrl_gpio_request(chip->base + offset);
> >         if (error)
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds



-- 
Navid.