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 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. Bjorn
