Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> writes:

> [ Unknown signature status ]
> On 10/06/16 12:16, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> writes:
>>> If there is a failure after pm_runtime_enable/get_sync()
>>> we need to call pm_runtime_disable/put_sync().
>>>
>>> Otherwise it will lead to an unbalanced pm_runtime_enable() on the
>>> subsequent probe if the earlier probe bailed out due to -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>
>> 
>> where is this supposed to be applied? You're not checking if
>
> On your testing/next
>
>> pm_runtime_get() failed at all.
>> 
>
> I'm not adding pm_runtime_get in my patch.
> Just fixing up the failure path in core.c.

that's fine, but you're missing this hunk:

-       pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
+
+       ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
+       if (ret < 0)
+               goto err1;
+
        pm_runtime_forbid(dev);

-- 
balbi