On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:56:42AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > There are two ways to opportunistically increment a device's runtime PM > usage count, calling either pm_runtime_get_if_active() or > pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(). The former has an argument to tell whether to > ignore the usage count or not, and the latter simply calls the former with > ign_usage_count set to false. The other users that want to ignore the > usage_count will have to explitly set that argument to true which is a bit > cumbersome. > > To make this function more practical to use, remove the ign_usage_count > argument from the function. The main implementation is renamed as > pm_runtime_get_conditional(). > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> # sound/ > Reviewed-by: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/accel/ivpu/ > Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> # drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> # drivers/pci/ - Previous PM history uses "PM: " in the subject lines (not "pm: "). - 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. - Similarly, it would be nice if pm_runtime_get_conditional() never had to be published in pm_runtime.h, instead of being temporarily added there by this patch and then immediately made private by 2/3. Maybe that's not practical, I dunno. Bjorn
