g2d_probe() calls pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), but its failure path
does not call the matching pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() before
disabling runtime PM.

If the autosuspend delay is set to a negative value while autosuspend
is enabled, the runtime PM core increments usage_count to prevent
runtime suspend. Without calling pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
during cleanup, this reference is not dropped and usage_count remains
unbalanced.

The documentation for pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() also notes that it
is important to undo it with pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at
driver exit time, unless runtime PM was initially enabled with
devm_pm_runtime_enable().

Add the missing pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() call to the probe
failure path before disabling runtime PM.

This issue was found by manual code inspection.

Fixes: d7f1642c90ab ("drm/exynos: add G2D driver")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c
index e92a4d872c41..98a5679258e2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c
@@ -1523,6 +1523,7 @@ static int g2d_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return 0;
 
 err_put_clk:
+	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(dev);
 	pm_runtime_disable(dev);
 err_destroy_workqueue:
 	destroy_workqueue(g2d->g2d_workq);
-- 
2.43.0

On 08/08/2026 14:17, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> g2d_probe() calls pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), but its failure path
> does not call the matching pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() before
> disabling runtime PM.
> 
> If the autosuspend delay is set to a negative value while autosuspend
> is enabled, the runtime PM core increments usage_count to prevent
> runtime suspend. Without calling pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
> during cleanup, this reference is not dropped and usage_count remains
> unbalanced.
> 
> The documentation for pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() also notes that it
> is important to undo it with pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at
> driver exit time, unless runtime PM was initially enabled with
> devm_pm_runtime_enable().
> 
> Add the missing pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() call to the probe
> failure path before disabling runtime PM.
> 
> This issue was found by manual code inspection.
> 
> Fixes: d7f1642c90ab ("drm/exynos: add G2D driver")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> ---

You sent vast amount of patches, all separate, making it very difficult
to track and respond in efficient way. Do not do that.

Group your work per subsystem.

You were asked to clarify and respond to incorrect fixes statement. I do
not see how you clarified and responded at all.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 at 22:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2026 14:17, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > g2d_probe() calls pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), but its failure path
> > does not call the matching pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() before
> > disabling runtime PM.
> >
> > If the autosuspend delay is set to a negative value while autosuspend
> > is enabled, the runtime PM core increments usage_count to prevent
> > runtime suspend. Without calling pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
> > during cleanup, this reference is not dropped and usage_count remains
> > unbalanced.
> >
> > The documentation for pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() also notes that it
> > is important to undo it with pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at
> > driver exit time, unless runtime PM was initially enabled with
> > devm_pm_runtime_enable().
> >
> > Add the missing pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() call to the probe
> > failure path before disabling runtime PM.
> >
> > This issue was found by manual code inspection.
> >
> > Fixes: d7f1642c90ab ("drm/exynos: add G2D driver")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> You sent vast amount of patches, all separate, making it very difficult
> to track and respond in efficient way. Do not do that.
>
> Group your work per subsystem.
>
> You were asked to clarify and respond to incorrect fixes statement. I do
> not see how you clarified and responded at all.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Sorry about that. I should have replied to the earlier review comments
explicitly, and I also should not have sent so many separate patches.

I will group future patches by subsystem and make sure to respond
clearly to review feedback before resending.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Best regards,
Guangshuo