Hi Krzysztof, On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 at 22:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/08/2026 14:59, Guangshuo Li wrote: > > lima_pdev_probe() calls pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), but its failure > > path does not call the matching pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() > > before disabling runtime PM. The remove path has the same issue. > > > > In particular, lima_pdev_remove() explicitly sets the autosuspend > > delay to -1 while autosuspend is still enabled. A negative autosuspend > > delay can increase usage_count to prevent runtime suspend. Without > > calling pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(), this reference is not > > dropped before runtime PM is disabled, leaving usage_count unbalanced. > > > > The documentation for pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() also notes that it > > is important to undo it with pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at > > driver exit time, unless runtime PM was initially enabled with > > devm_pm_runtime_enable(). > > > > Add the missing pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() calls to the probe > > failure and remove paths. > > > > This issue was found by manual code inspection. > > > > Fixes: 50de2e9ebbc0 ("drm/lima: enable runtime pm") > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <[email protected]> > > --- > > You sent vast amount of patches, all separate, making it very difficult > to track and respond in efficient way. Do not do that. > > Group your work per subsystem. > > You were asked to clarify and respond to incorrect fixes statement. I do > not see how you clarified and responded at all. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
Sorry about that. I should have replied to the earlier review comments explicitly, and I also should not have sent so many separate patches. I will group future patches by subsystem and make sure to respond clearly to review feedback before resending. Thanks for pointing this out. Best regards, Guangshuo
