Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200614090751.GA2878@kunai>
In-Reply-To: <20200614090751.GA2878@kunai>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:34:45 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc2RV1daOHMM1zAT2P_YpFzYq=_NVXnagq7qBCS9En04g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: a failing pm_runtime_get increases the refcnt?
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> both in the I2C subsystem and also for Renesas drivers I maintain, I am
> starting to get boilerplate patches doing some pm_runtime_put_* variant
> because a failing pm_runtime_get is supposed to increase the ref
> counters? Really? This feels wrong and unintuitive to me.

Yeah, that is a well known issue with PM (I even have for a long time
a coccinelle script, when I realized myself that there are a lot of
cases like this, but someone else discovered this recently, like
opening a can of worms).

> I expect there
> has been a discussion around it but I couldn't find it.

Rafael explained (again) recently this. I can't find it quickly, unfortunately.

> I wonder why we
> don't fix the code where the incremented refcount is expected for some
> reason.

The main idea behind API that a lot of drivers do *not* check error
codes from runtime PM, so, we need to keep balance in case of

pm_runtime_get(...);
...
pm_runtime_put(...);

> Can I have some pointers please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko