[PATCH] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure

[PATCH] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure

[Johan Hovold]

Make sure that the device is not runtime suspended before explicitly
disabling the clocks on probe failure and on driver unbind to avoid a
clock enable-count imbalance.

Fixes: 9e3a000362ae ("spi: zynqmp: Add pm runtime support")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org	# 4.19
Cc: Naga Sureshkumar Relli <naga.sureshkumar.relli@xilinx.com>
Cc: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-zynqmp-gqspi.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-zynqmp-gqspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-zynqmp-gqspi.c
index fb2ca9b90eab..c309dedfd602 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-zynqmp-gqspi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-zynqmp-gqspi.c
@@ -1342,9 +1342,9 @@ static int zynqmp_qspi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return 0;
 
 clk_dis_all:
-	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
-	pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
 	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
+	pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev);
+	pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
 	clk_disable_unprepare(xqspi->refclk);
 clk_dis_pclk:
 	clk_disable_unprepare(xqspi->pclk);
@@ -1368,11 +1368,15 @@ static void zynqmp_qspi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct zynqmp_qspi *xqspi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
+	pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
+
 	zynqmp_gqspi_write(xqspi, GQSPI_EN_OFST, 0x0);
+
+	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
+	pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev);
+	pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
 	clk_disable_unprepare(xqspi->refclk);
 	clk_disable_unprepare(xqspi->pclk);
-	pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
-	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
 }
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, zynqmp_qspi_of_match);
-- 
2.39.3

Re: [PATCH] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:24:35 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Make sure that the device is not runtime suspended before explicitly
> disabling the clocks on probe failure and on driver unbind to avoid a
> clock enable-count imbalance.
> 
> 

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure
      commit: 1527b076ae2cb6a9c590a02725ed39399fcad1cf

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

Re: [PATCH] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure

[Johan Hovold]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:42:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:24:35 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Make sure that the device is not runtime suspended before explicitly
> > disabling the clocks on probe failure and on driver unbind to avoid a
> > clock enable-count imbalance.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Applied to
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1/1] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure
>       commit: 1527b076ae2cb6a9c590a02725ed39399fcad1cf

I noticed that this one is still sitting in your for-next (and for-6.4)
branch but that it wasn't included in your 6.6 (or 6.5) pull request.

Did you intend to send it as a fix during the 6.6 cycle or as it fallen
between the cracks somehow?

Johan

Re: [PATCH] spi: zynqmp-gqspi: fix clock imbalance on probe failure

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 02:14:05PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> I noticed that this one is still sitting in your for-next (and for-6.4)
> branch but that it wasn't included in your 6.6 (or 6.5) pull request.

> Did you intend to send it as a fix during the 6.6 cycle or as it fallen
> between the cracks somehow?

It fell through the cracks - I was originally intending to send it as a
fix for v6.4.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]