From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 17/40] soundwire: bus: use runtime_pm_get_sync/pm when enabled Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:58:09 +0300 Message-ID: <20190730155809.GS23480@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20190725234032.21152-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20190725234032.21152-18-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <45a912c5-134b-8642-70ef-8c1060389300@linux.intel.com> <20190726190823.GD9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <5a16d9e6-0a9c-a0a8-3b11-d046247f3879@linux.intel.com> <20190730112157.GM23480@smile.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pierre-Louis Bossart Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, tiwai@suse.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, jank@cadence.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com, Sanyog Kale List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 07:57:46AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > On 7/30/19 6:21 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:07:39PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 7/26/19 2:08 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:08:57PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > - if (ret < 0) > > > > > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES) > > > > > > > > ...and here, the pm_runtime_put_noidle() call is missed. > > > > > > yes but in the example you provided, they actually do more work than just > > > decrement the device usage counter: > > > > In their case they would like to do that. You decide what is appropriate call > > in your case. > > > > My point is, that reference counter in case of error handling should be > > returned back to its value. > > Agree on the reference count. > I am however not clear on the next step and 'what is appropriate'. > > If pm_runtime_get_sync() failed, then technically the device was not resumed Not so straight. It depends on reference count. It might be true (most cases I think), or not true, if device had been resumed previously by other call. > so marking it as last_busy+autosuspend, or using a plain vanilla put() will > not result in any action. I must be missing something here. put_noidle(). Because if it failed on the first call and was resumed, put() will try to shut it down (since reference count goes to no-user base). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko