Messages in this thread | | | From | Ohad Ben-Cohen <> | Date | Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:27:40 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case |
| |
Hi Li,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Li Fei <fei.li@intel.com> wrote: > > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
Is it better then to call pm_runtime_put_noidle instead? This way we're sure to only take care of usage_count without ever calling any underlying pm handler.
Thanks, Ohad.
> In __hwspin_lock_request, module_put is also called before > return in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case. > > Signed-off-by Liu Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Li Fei <fei.li@intel.com> > --- > drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c b/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c > index db713c0..5a5076d 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c > +++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c > @@ -416,6 +416,8 @@ static int __hwspin_lock_request(struct hwspinlock *hwlock) > ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > if (ret < 0) { > dev_err(dev, "%s: can't power on device\n", __func__); > + pm_runtime_put(dev); > + module_put(dev->driver->owner); > return ret; > } > > -- > 1.7.4.1 > > >
| |