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

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

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Linus,

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 4:49 AM Navid Emamdoost
> <navid.emamdoost@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c
> > index 7284473c9fe3..eac1582c70da 100644
> > --- 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);
> >                 return error;
> > +       }
>
> I need Geert's review on this, he's usually on top of the Renesas stuff.

TBH, I don't know anymore _which_ is the right call to make...

"Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-ti-qspi: call pm_runtime_put on pm_runtime_get failure"
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20200602095411.GB5684@sirena.org.uk/

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert


--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

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