On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 01:27:18PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:32:19PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > OK, I guess this is as good as it gets. > > > > > > > > > > What tree would you like it go through? > > > > > > > > Do we really need this new helper ? I mean, the very moment when we > > > > decide to implement ->runtime_idle() we will need to get rid of this > > > > change. I wonder if it's really valid... > > > > > > I'm not sure I'm following? This seems to simply implement what drivers > > > have been doing already as one function. Why would it be invalid to reduce > > > code duplication? > > > > For two reasons: > > > > 1) the helper has no inteligence whatsoever. It just calls the same > > functions. > > > > 2) the duplication will vanish whenever someone implements > > ->runtime_idle() and have that call pm_runtime_autosuspend() (like PCI > > and USB buses are doing today). This will just be yet another line that > > needs to change. > > > > Frankly though, no strong feelings, I just think it's a commit that > > doesn't bring that any benefits other than looking like one line was > > removed. > and yes that is what it tries to do nothing more nothing less. If in future > there are no users (today we have quite a few), then we can remove the dead > macro, no harm. But that is not the situation today. as I said, a commit that's bound to be useless. It's not like you're saving 10 lines of code, it's only one. Replacing two simple lines with a function which takes <joke> almost as many characters to type </joke>. IMO, this is pretty useless and I'd rather not see them in the drivers I maintain, sorry. cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
