Hi Laurent, On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:30:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > 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(). -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
