Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: sst: Fix runtime PM imbalance in sst_power_control

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 5/25/20 2:06 AM, Dinghao Liu wrote:
When sst_load_fw() returns an error code, a pairing runtime
PM usage counter decrement is needed to keep the counter
balanced.

Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao....@zju.edu.cn>
---
  sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c 
b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
index 762495385d5c..3897985b254f 100644
--- a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
+++ b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ static int sst_power_control(struct device *dev, bool state)
                if ((ctx->sst_state == SST_RESET) && (usage_count == 1)) {
                        ret = sst_load_fw(ctx);
                        if (ret) {
+                               pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
                                dev_err(dev, "FW download fail %d\n", ret);
                                sst_set_fw_state_locked(ctx, SST_RESET);
                                ret = sst_pm_runtime_put(ctx);

this change doesn't seem quite right, if you look the code below there 
is no PM imbalance, is there?

int sst_pm_runtime_put(struct intel_sst_drv *sst_drv)
{
        int ret;

        pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(sst_drv->dev);
        ret = pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(sst_drv->dev);
        if (ret < 0)
                return ret;
        return 0;
}