Re: [PATCH V3 1/6] dmaengine: zynqmp_dma: Fix PM usage count handling in probe error path

["Golla, Nagendra" <Nagendra.Golla@amd.com>]

Hi,

On 8/10/2026 3:58 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The introduced pm_runtime_put_sync() fails to synchronously suspend the device because autosuspend is enabled, leaving clocks active.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH V3 1/6] dmaengine: zynqmp_dma: Fix PM usage count handling in probe error path ---
> commit 8bb5754b8f17c08d0144740ac308428274806a68
> Author: Golla Nagendra <nagendra.golla@amd.com>
> 
> dmaengine: zynqmp_dma: Fix PM usage count handling in probe error path
> 
> This commit attempts to fix a reference leak on the probe error path. When
> probe fails after successfully waking up the device, it adds a missing
> runtime PM put call to drop the usage count and allow the device to suspend.
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/zynqmp_dma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/zynqmp_dma.c
>> --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/zynqmp_dma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/zynqmp_dma.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> @@ -1152,6 +1152,8 @@ static int zynqmp_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   err_disable_pm:
>>   	if (!pm_runtime_enabled(zdev->dev))
>>   		zynqmp_dma_runtime_suspend(zdev->dev);
>> +	else
>> +		pm_runtime_put_sync(zdev->dev);
>>   	pm_runtime_disable(zdev->dev);
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Does this actually suspend the device and disable the clocks?
> 
> Since autosuspend is enabled for this device earlier in zynqmp_dma_probe():
> pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(zdev->dev);
> 
> Calling pm_runtime_put_sync() will only schedule an asynchronous suspend
> timer. The immediately following pm_runtime_disable() will cancel this
> pending timer before the suspend callback ever runs, leaving the clocks
> permanently enabled.
> 
> Should this use pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() instead to force a synchronous
> suspend and bypass the autosuspend delay before disabling runtime PM?

Thanks for catching this
Agreed will fix this in the next version

Thanks,
Nagendra
> 
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>