Hi Bjorn, Thanks for the review. On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > 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: "). Oops. I'm not sure why I used lower case. (Maybe I've written too many times "media:" prefix to the subject?) I'll fix this in v5. > > - 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. I think I'd merge the two patches. The second patch is fairly small, after all, and both deal with largely the same code. > > - 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. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
