RNA-seq count data is non-linear and more closely resembles a negative binomial / Poisson-like distribution. For example, running linear regression on RNA-seq counts, normalised or otherwise, is not a great idea. DESeq2 for example, fits a negative binomial regression line through the counts and usually derives its p-value via the Wald test applied to model terms.
If you are looking to use RNA-seq data for cell deconvolution, I would go about obtaining the normalised, transformed counts, such as logCPM (EdgeR), variance-stabilised (DESeq2), or regularised log (DESeq2) expression levels. In EdgeR, you may play around with the prior count that can be added to 0-count genes prior to transformation. DESeq2's transformations deal with these low count genes in its own way.
Personally, I would then obtain Z-scores from the transformed data and use those for deconvolution - this is more readily interpreted. For example, you could regard genes with Z>3 as being highly expressed / representative of a tissue / cell-type, et cetera.
RNAseq data (raw counts) can be transformed for linear modeling. Try voom method on RNAseq data.
Even though logCPM (voom) transformed expression value maintains linearity, we still face 0-sum game issue which cause variables dependence and non-linearity, right. This issue is inherited in the raw data and I can't see any way to fix it.