On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:12 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 01:41:21PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > There are two ways to opportunistically increment a device's runtime PM > > usage count, calling either pm_runtime_get_if_active() or > > pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(). The former has an argument to tell whether to > > ignore the usage count or not, and the latter simply calls the former with > > ign_usage_count set to false. The other users that want to ignore the > > usage_count will have to explitly set that argument to true which is a bit > > cumbersome. > > s/explitly/explicitly/ > > > To make this function more practical to use, remove the ign_usage_count > > argument from the function. The main implementation is renamed as > > pm_runtime_get_conditional(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> # sound/ > > Reviewed-by: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/accel/ivpu/ > > Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> # drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/pci/ > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_get_if_active); > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_get_conditional); > > If pm_runtime_get_conditional() is exported, shouldn't it also be > documented in Documentation/power/runtime_pm.rst? > > But I'm dubious about exporting it because > __intel_runtime_pm_get_if_active() is the only caller, and you end up > with the same pattern there that we have before this series in the PM > core. Why can't intel_runtime_pm.c be updated to use > pm_runtime_get_if_active() or pm_runtime_get_if_in_use() directly, and > make pm_runtime_get_conditional() static? Sounds like a good suggestion to me.
