Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] pm: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active() usage

[Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:48:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:44:04PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
> 
> > > - I don't know whether it's feasible, but it would be nice if the
> > >   intel_pm_runtime_pm.c rework could be done in one shot instead of
> > >   being split between patches 1/3 and 2/3.
> > > 
> > >   Maybe it could be a preliminary patch that uses the existing
> > >   if_active/if_in_use interfaces, followed by the trivial if_active
> > >   updates in this patch.  I think that would make the history easier
> > >   to read than having the transitory pm_runtime_get_conditional() in
> > >   the middle.
> > 
> > I think I'd merge the two patches. The second patch is fairly small, after
> > all, and both deal with largely the same code.
> 
> I'm not sure which two patches you mean, but the fact that two patches
> deal with largely the same code is not necessarily an argument for
> merging them.  From a reviewing perspective, it's nice if a patch like

Patches 1 and 2. The third patch introduces a new Runtime PM API function.

> 1/3, where it's largely mechanical and easy to review, is separated
> from patches that make more substantive changes.
> 
> That's why I think it'd be nice if the "interesting"
> intel_pm_runtime_pm.c changes were all in the same patch, and ideally,
> if that patch *only* touched intel_pm_runtime_pm.c.

I don't think squashing the second patch to the first really changes this
meaningfully: the i915 driver simply needs both
pm_runtime_get_if_{active,in_use}, and this is what the patch does to other
drivers already. Making the pm_runtime_get_conditional static would also
fit for the first patch if the desire is to not to introduce it at all.

-- 
Sakari Ailus