Re: [PATCH 0/2] clk: imx: add missing pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() calls

[Frank Li]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Joshua Crofts wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 10:24:29 +0200
> Joshua Crofts <joshua.crofts1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 11:11:54 -0500
> > Frank Li <Frank.li@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:24:32AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 10:33:43AM +0000, Joshua Crofts wrote:
> > > > > Several drivers in the clk subsystem forget to call dont_use_autosuspend()
> > > > > on teardown or error, causing potential resource leaks. This series adds
> > > > > the missing calls.
> > > >
> > > > No, as I've explained repeatedly elsewhere, it does not cause any
> > > > resource leaks. [1][2]
> > > >
> > > > The autosuspend setting leaks if you will, but that only matters in the
> > > > theoretical corner case of someone rebinding a different driver (which
> > > > will soon also taint the kernel).
> > > >
> > > > So don't exaggerate the impact, this is essentially just a cleanup,
> > > > which is fine in itself.
> > >
> > > Is it possilbe to create/improve runtime pm API, let runtime_pm enable/disable
> > > include these pair functions.
> > >
> > > I get many similar patches since scan tools is more powerful now.
> >
> > I suppose that could work. One would still have to scrub the kernel of legacy
> > use/dont_use_autosuspend() calls though, so it could end up being a large
> > patchset.
> >
>
> On second thought, some drivers do tend to disable PM runtime system sleep
> etc. so it probably isn't as simple as adding the autosuspend stuff to
> enable/disable.

if runtime pm disable, does autosuspend still work? suppose it should be
disable also

Frank

>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Joshua Crofts