Re: [PATCH v2] counter: ti-eqep: balance pm_runtime on devm_clk_get_enabled() failure

[William Breathitt Gray <wbg@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:10:20AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 5:21 PM Stepan Ionichev <sozdayvek@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ti_eqep_probe() calls pm_runtime_enable() and pm_runtime_get_sync()
> > before devm_clk_get_enabled(). If the clk call fails, the function
> > returns directly via dev_err_probe(), leaving runtime PM enabled
> > and the usage counter incremented.
> >
> > Route the clk error through the same err_pm cleanup as counter_add()
> > so the runtime PM state is unwound on every failure path.
> 
> ...
> 
> >         pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> >
> >         clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, NULL);
> > -       if (IS_ERR(clk))
> > -               return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(clk), "failed to enable clock\n");
> > +       if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
> > +               err = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(clk), "failed to enable clock\n");
> > +               goto err_pm;
> 
> This is not right. The devm_*() should not be followed by goto.
> 
> > +       }
> 
> ...
> 
> > +err_pm:
> > +       pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
> > +       pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> > +       return err;
> 
> You have to use the respective devm_pm_*() at the same time.
> 
> ...
> 
> William, this patch should not be applied (or should be reverted) as
> in current form it replaces one issue by another.
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

I'll revert for now. Would the proper fix be to replace all
pm_runtime_*() with their respective devm_pm_*() calls?

William Breathitt Gray