Does the patch below make more sense to you where we call rpm_idle?
That seems to make things behave here also.

quoted

quoted

What else does __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() set initially
that changes things here?

The usage counter, if the delay is negative.

Yeah I don't see any difference with those.

quoted

I'll look at this in detail, but not right now, sorry.  I'm working on
something else ATM and I was hoping that Ulf would be able to figure
out what's going on here.

Yeah we need to understand what's going on here. Having the PM runtime
framework out of sync with the hardare is not good.. If we can't
figure this out we should probably revert the patch until we understand
it.

Regards,

Tony

8< ------------

--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c

@@ -1419,17 +1419,28 @@ void pm_runtime_init(struct device *dev)
  */
 void pm_runtime_reinit(struct device *dev)
 {
-	if (!pm_runtime_enabled(dev)) {
-		if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE)
+	int (*callback)(struct device *);
+	int err;
+
+	if (pm_runtime_enabled(dev))
+		return;
+
+	if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE) {
+		if (dev->power.use_autosuspend) {
+			__pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false);
+			rpm_idle(dev, RPM_AUTO);