>
> 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);
>
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
---
sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_drv_interface.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --g
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
---
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_interfac
3 matches
Mail list logo
