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.liu@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; }