Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20220606212112.3617731-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
References: <20220606212112.3617731-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gdsc: Bump parent usage count when GDSC is found enabled
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Date:   Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:54:09 -0700
User-Agent: alot/0.10
Message-Id: <20220608205411.2B0B0C34116@smtp.kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2022-06-06 14:21:12)
> When a GDSC is found to be enabled at boot the pm_runtime state will
> be unbalanced as the GDSC is later turned off. Fix this by increasing
> the usage counter on the power-domain, in line with how we handled the
> regulator state.
>=20
> Fixes: 1b771839de05 ("clk: qcom: gdsc: enable optional power domain suppo=
rt")

Is it fixing a regression to the point that I need to merge this on
-fixes? The commit text talks about fixing it but I don't understand the
urgency, i.e. was it discovered recently and this fixes display on some
board or something like that?

> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
> index 44520efc6c72..a1fa7c4cff60 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
> @@ -420,6 +420,9 @@ static int gdsc_init(struct gdsc *sc)
>                                 return ret;
>                 }
> =20
> +               /* ...and the power-domain */
> +               gdsc_pm_runtime_get(sc);

Shouldn't we check for error and bail out if it fails?