On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 00:25, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 12:08:24AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 20:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:38:36PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:41, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > This set will switch the users of pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() to > > > > > __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() while the former will soon be re-purposed > > > > > to include a call to pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). The two are almost > > > > > always used together, apart from bugs which are likely common. Going > > > > > forward, most new users should be using pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). > > > > > > > > > > Once this conversion is done and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() re-purposed, > > > > > I'll post another set to merge the calls to __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() > > > > > and pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(). > > > > > > > > That sounds like it could cause a lot of churns. > > > > > > > > Why not add a new helper function that does the > > > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() and the pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() > > > > things? Then we can start moving users over to this new interface, > > > > rather than having this intermediate step? > > > > > > I think the API would be nicer if we used the shortest and simplest > > > function names for the most common use cases. Following > > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() with pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() is that > > > most common use case. That's why I like Sakari's approach of repurposing > > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(), and introducing > > > __pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() for the odd cases where > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() shouldn't be called. > > > > Okay, so the reason for this approach is because we couldn't find a > > short and descriptive name that could be used in favor of > > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). Let me throw some ideas at it and maybe > > you like it - or not. :-) > > I like the idea at least :-) > > > I don't know what options you guys discussed, but to me the entire > > "autosuspend"-suffix isn't really that necessary in my opinion. There > > are more ways than calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() that triggers > > us to use the RPM_AUTO flag for rpm_suspend(). For example, just > > calling pm_runtime_put() has the similar effect. > > To be honest, I'm lost there. pm_runtime_put() calls > __pm_runtime_idle(RPM_GET_PUT | RPM_ASYNC), while > pm_runtime_put_autosuspend() calls __pm_runtime_suspend(RPM_GET_PUT | > RPM_ASYNC | RPM_AUTO). __pm_runtime_idle() ends up calling rpm_idle(), which may call rpm_suspend() - if it succeeds to idle the device. In that case, it tags on the RPM_AUTO flag in the call to rpm_suspend(). Quite similar to what is happening when calling pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(). > > > > > Moreover, it's similar for pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(), it's called > > during rpm_resume() too, for example. So why bother about having > > "mark_last_busy" in the new name too. > > > > That said, my suggestion is simply "pm_runtime_put_suspend". > > Can we do even better, and make pm_runtime_put() to handle autosuspend > automatically when autosuspend is enabled ? As stated above, this is already the case. > > > If you don't like it, I will certainly not object to your current > > approach, even if I think it leads to unnecessary churns. > > > > [...] > > > > Kind regards > > Uffe > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart Kind regards Uffe
