Hi Laurent, On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:47:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:27:51AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:30:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:20:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 6:49 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:14:28PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > > Add pm_runtime_put_mark_busy_autosusp() helper function for users that > > > > > > wish to set the last_busy timestamp to current time and put the > > > > > > usage_count of the device and set the autosuspend timer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially calling pm_runtime_suspend_mark_busy_autosusp() equal to > > > > > > calling first pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() and then > > > > > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). > > > > > > > > > > The vast majority if the pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() users call > > > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() right before. Let's make the > > > > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() function do that by default, and add a > > > > > __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() (name to be bikshedded) for the minority > > > > > of cases where updating the last busy timestamp isn't desired. We want > > > > > to simplify the API, not make it more complex. > > > > > > > > I would also prefer it to be done this way if not too problematic. > > > > > > I'm glad you agree :-) The change will probably be a bit painful, but I > > > think it's for the best. Sakari, please let me know if I can help. > > > > I actually do prefer this approach, too. > > > > There about 350 drivers using pm_runtime_autosuspend() currently. Around > > 150 uses pm_runtime_autosuspend() which is not preceded by > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). Call-wise the numbers are ~ 1050 and ~ 330. > > > > I checked some of what's left: most do still call both, but in a way that > > evades Coccinelle matching. Some omissions seem to remain. > > > > Given that there are way more users that do also call > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(), I think I'll try to introduce > > __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() > > documentation change first and then rename the callers that don't use > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). > > And also drop pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() from the drivers that call > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), right ? That should be done but as it doesn't affect the functionality, it can (and may only) be done later on --- the current users need to be converted to use the to-be-added __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() first. > > This sounds good to me. Thank you for working on this. Two RPM API > simplifications in a week, it feels like Christmas is coming :-) Yes. And it's always the case actually! Only the time that it takes differs. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
